ει ͵ 2 SR YD REMARKS ON THE ETYMOLOGY. OF \ ree TON ayn or ΘΕΟΣ, THE RENDERING OF THOSE TERMS INTO CHINESE. BY THE REY. 5, ὁ, MALAN, M.A., OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD; AND VICAR OF BROADWINDSOR, DORSET. “ Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸν ἐν ᾿Αθήναις λγνωστον ἐφευρόντες, καὶ προσκυνήσαντες, χεῖρας. εἰς οὐρανὸν ἐκτείναντες, τούτῳ εὐχαριστήσομεν, ὡς καταξιωθέντες τοιόυτου κράτους ὑπήκοοι. γενέσθαι. Τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς, ληρεῖν emp ᾿ἀρκεσθέντες ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν εἰπεῖν, τὸ, Od φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ, κατὰ τὴν se mapowpiay.”—Luctan, Philopatr. ad fin. π᾿ ᾿Π ΛΕ. ΤΌΧΡΟΝ.: SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS; EHO FOR BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, PRAYER BOOKS, CHURCH SERVIOES, b> LEXIOONS, - opeigeanad CONCORDANCES, AND PSALTERS, IN ANCIENT — AND MODERN LANGUAGES; 16, PATERNOSTER ROW. ‘YSTEPON UPOTEPON. Tue preachers of the Gospel in China are not yet agreed among themselves as to who is Gop in that country. Some say it is “ Sur,” others say it is SHANG-TE”; while a few declare it is neither. Our own knowledge of the subject is, we regret to say, very limited. For we have never been in China; and our acquaintance with Chinese literature is as yet only slight. But, in common with many, we earnestly wish to see the Gospel have free course in China, instead of being hindered there by those who preach it. If, therefore, they and their friends at home, will not disdain a few hints from one who has no prior claim to their notice, we will venture to suggest a few points at issue between them, which, when calmly considered, may possibly tend to level difficulties in the way of a mutual understanding. “ Favete, adeste eequo animo, et rem cognoscite Ut pernoscatis, ecquid spei sit reliquum.” But, although we had no alternative, in giving PUG S2aL iv ‘YSTEPON IIPOTEPON. extracts from Chinese and from other Asiatic writings, than to strip them of their native elegance, and to lower them to the level of common type, we owe some apology to men resident in China for doing so. For, as there is inherent in every letter a feature that belongs to the language, there can be no real equi- valent for a characteristic alphabet. Assuredly not for the grave outline of the sacred Devanagari; and least of all for the ideographic symbols of the land of Yaou and Shun. Fancy even Homer in Roman type! Would he not be — ‘* pholkos” indeed, ‘‘cholos d’heteron poda: to de hoi omo kyrto, epi stethos synochokote echthistos d’Achilei malist’ on, ede kai hemin?” For quotations disguised in this vicious and am- biguous form, which is little else than the lifeless remains of their living original, offer but a repulsive image of the language they represent. And their only use is, we may say, to point to the gems of archaic lore enshrined in the venerable texts to which they refer. Thus, while occupied in noticing faults in other men, we are naturally brought to solicit their in- ὝΣΤΕΡΟΝ IIPOTEPON. ν dulgence, and to hope that (at least for the sake of Hafiz), when in reading they discover our own errors,*— wi Geb y cy les S Cty dei Lbs ἡ dle At ae ἀξ “they will not blame but forgive; remembering that no tiving man is free from mistake.” It is true, * ““ quos aut incuria fudit, Aut humana parum cavit natura” — Such} as: p.10,1.8,18, 5 for ὁ im Kel au!.—p. 20,1. 16, ὥρισε Jor dpwe.—p. 22, 1. 20, men for them.—ibid. 1. 25, dele 76.— p- ὅθ, 1. 4, χθόνος for xOovds.—p. 57, 1. 14, δι μαϑο ΐν]ο Sor ᾿ξ ,αϑὸ Shii10.—p. 59, 1. 19, ἢ for Q, la, in FOND. —p. 76, 1.9, le for le im Eddaleren.—p. 81, 1. 24, πιστόφυλαξ for πιστοφύλαξ.---Ὁ. 84, 1. 18, πάντος for révtws.—p. 88, 1. 26, this for that.—p. 91, 1. 9, ἹῬωμαίοι for “Pwpator.—p. 97, 1. 28, dele (Vit.)— p- 110, 1. 16, It for Hymn.—p. 111, 1. 2, note, ed for et.—p. 119, 1, 14, dio for dio.—p. 114, 1. 9, in for im.—p. 117, 1. 12, de for cbe.—p. 122, 1.19; 166,1.9; ἑνὰ for &a.—p. 124, 1. 1, add to.— ibid, 1. 8, y, for αὐ ὧν Vy Sayre. 94,1. 8: 126, 1.4; 188, 1.11; 190, 1. 10, δαίμον for Saipov.—p. 126, 1. 18, παθόμενος for meopevos.—p. 127, 1. 23, mixed for mix.—p. 128, 1. 9, ἧττόν for ἧττον. --Ῥ. 139, 1. 7, 8, Ee for K’he.—p. 152, 1. 6, k’heang for keuen.—p. 177,1. 11, Wai-jin for E-jin—p. 188, 1. 1, 2 for ¥ in Wy.—ibid. 1. 6, DBWIDD for *PELIDN.—ibid. 1. 27, 993 for Π83.--- " p. 205, 1. 12, ἕτεροι for erepot.—p. 223, 1. 10, DMN for arose. — p. 251, 1. 7, dele , after DTON.—p. 278, 1. 7, Διὰ for Aia.—and others, we trust less important. vi ‘YSTEPON IIPOTEPON. that, had we given the opinions of others instead of our own, we might have left our pages less imperfect. But a mere compilation from other writings would not have served the cause in hand so effectually as a fresh supply of original matter. We have abstained, therefore, from consulting others, in order to approach the subject with a mind entirely free from bias on either side; and so as to form our judgment on*the merits of the case, from the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Chinese texts alone. The following remarks, then, however crude they may be, have at least one merit,—that of not being borrowed, but authentic. Under these circumstances, however, it is quite possible we may have taken erroneous views on some points. If so, we will hope, that since our only motive is a search after Truth, our short-comings may provoke some one else, who, within reach of a good library, enjoys greater facilities for research than we do, to go deep into this important question, and to settle it once for all. “Ἔν Θεῷ ye μὰν τέλος." 5.6 Ν. BROADWINDSOR, Feb, 1856. ig | CONTENTS. PAGES I.—INTRODUCTION ; é 5 : ; t 1—10 Il.—Ossect oF THE WorkK OF TRANSLATION . 10—13 IlI.—On our INTERCOURSE WITH THE HEATHEN . 138—32 δὰ IV.—On THE TRANSLATION OF THE TERM “GOD” 3839.--. 59 V.—On tHE Erymoxocy oF 8, FON, AND DTN 52—69 ViI.—On tHE EryMotocy or ΘΕῸΣ. : . 7TO—129 VIl.—Own THE EryMoLoGy or T’HEEN . - 129—135 VIIIl.—On tHe ΕἸΤΥΜΟΙΟΘῪ or SHIN . ; + 135-=158 IX.—Propaste Reasons in Favour oF SHIN AS EQUIVALENT FOR “ GoD,” REFUTED - 1638—164 X.—On THE ErymMotocy oF SHANG-TE . . 165—173 XI.—On THE CHOICE OF THAT TERM FOR “Gop” 173—182 ΧΙ. ῬΑΒΑΥΤΕΙ, BETWEEN 8, Aon, pToN, ΘΕΟΣ anp Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ, anp SHANG-TE, WHIcH PROVES SHIN TO BE AAIMON αν not ΘΕΟΣ : : ; 2 ; i - 1838—199 XIUI.—On tue Erymotogy or AAIMON : . 200—215 XIV.—Comparison oF SHIN, AND ΟΕ SHANG-TE, IN THE BIBLE WITH by : ; : . 218-227 ΧΥ.--Ὥτττο, . . . . WITH πος AND Dros : . 227—237 XVI.—Dirro, .... witn ΘΕῸΣ anp 6@EOS . 24257---247 Vill CONTENTS. τ ῬΑΘῈΞ XVII.—On THE UNFITNESS OF SHIN TO STAND For GOD .. . : ; : 5 248—259 XVIII.—On THE DANGER OF ALLOWING PRIVATE FEELING TO BIAS THE JUDGMENT IN SUCH MATTERS ‘ : ; ; . 260—276 XIX.—On THE SHANGHAE VERSION : . 276-282 XX.—SumMMING UP oF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SHANG-TE . : ‘ - ἢ . 283—291 XXI.—Ditto, .... 4N Favour oF SHIN. 291—304 XXII.—Conciusion ; : : ; : . 305—310 (St. Eppram Ser. adv. Scrvr. lix.) 21D εἰκών Ἰόξζο NS wialo yo |Auralo ahi cin «οὐδ. Gai BS ps σιό--. σιό GNan Ἰών)ὸ aj fol eats od “The Word of our Gop is the source of peace, and brings peace to all. But we make war with it;. with it we think of strife;—with it we hate one another; and again, with it we prepare destruction for ourselves.” ee ‘ Le ee ee eS ee! Ee δα ee Oe ONT REMAR-KS, ETC, i. AxsouT a year ago we bought for a very small sum, at the Depository of the British and Foreign Bible Society, a beautifully-printed copy of the first part of the New Testament in Chinese, with this title-page in English and Chinese : “The New Testament in Chinese, translated by the Committee of Delegates, appointed by the Protestant Missionaries in China for that purpose: printed at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society; the Text, exclusive of the words for representing Theos and Pneuma, being supervised by the Committee of Delegates ; the blanks left by them for these words being filled in by the Shanghae Corresponding Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society. London Missionary Society’s Press. Shanghae, 1851.” “She shoo-che ch’hing ‘Shang-Te’ che ch’hwang-tsao T’heen-Tih-Choo tsae-ming-wuh, eul yen. Ke ming ‘ Yay- howah’ ts’*hung-kaou, wo shang so tang pae-k’hwei; wei 5Ζ6 yew jin i chi-tsung-che ming ch’hing fan so tse-sze tsae- fung-chay ; koo she shoo-che fan yung sze ch’hing tsae. I Z 2 ; 2 p’heih ke wang shih-keae-che yih yue: Go Yay-ho-wah eul-che Shang-Te; yu eul wai puh-ko pee yew Shang-Te. *‘She Shoo-che yung ‘ Shin’ tsze che wo-hing-tseih-chay ; ΘᾺ] yen.’’* The words “ Theos” and “ Pneuma,” ‘ God” and ἐς Spirit,” printed on the face of the book, and at once suggestive of goodness and peace, induced us to hope that, ere this, their influence had allayed the waves of controversy, which had “raged horribly,” for years, between the champions of “Shin,” and the worship- pers of ‘“‘Shang-Te.” We hailed, therefore, our pur- chase as a messenger of peace; and we carried it home as a pledge of better days. But the dove, alas! has returned without an olive leaf. And the flag of truce, waved in token of good-will, has just been fired upon, though happily not hit, by a small battery on land, in the shape of an anonymous pamphlet;f a signal to the knights of “Shin” once more to enter * “Tn this book the term ‘Shang-Te’ refers to the Lord-Governor of men and things, who at first created the heavens and the earth; and that is all. His highly-honourable name, Ye-ho-wah, is exalted above taking honour from bowing and kneeling which, are practised among men, in token of the greatest respect, and as expressions of the highest degree of — devotion to Him. For this reason is this term (Shang-Te) in general use in this book. And, to guard against an erroneous impression of its mean- ing, the first of the Ten Commandments says: ‘I am Ye-ho-wah thy God (Shang-Te), besides me thou mayest have none other God (Shang- Το). In this book, the term ‘Shin’ refers to that which has neither form nor substance; and that is all.” Tt “* Shin v. Shang-Te’: antagonistic versions of the Chinese Scrip- tures. A review of the controversy respecting the proper rendering of Exoum and ΘΕῸΣ into Chinese, and statement of the evidence showing a large majority for ‘Shin,’ etc. By a life-member of the Bible Society, of thirty years’ standing.— Ex. xxiii, 13; Isaiah xlii, 8; Luke xi. 11. London: Wertheim and Macintosh.” 3 the ring, and to run the gauntlet in full tilt. For as yet there is no peace among the belligerents. The two rival armies are still in battle-array against each other, and still eager to shout in the fray: “Io triumphe!” “We will fight in defence of ‘Shin’ or ‘Shang-Te’ !” Sad, indeed, it is that it should be so. For, in truth, one might expect that every man engaged in the solemn undertaking to translate the Word of God, and to give it to the heathen in its purest form, would let that all-important object outweigh all other con- siderations; and that he would at once lay the free- will offering of his learning at the foot of his Saviour’s cross. We must, however, conclude from the pam- phlet before us, that, apart from convictions, the re- sult of conscientious research alone, private judgment, if not, party feeling, have at times taken the place of calm discussion; and they seem, at last, to have brought men, at home, conscientiously to hate one another for the love of God; and, in China, to fight angrily by way of eee peace. And in such a cause, too! when— VysS δά dod Gyo 0 “Two hearts in one might rend a mountain” ; they still prefer— Bp oS Onl LA “To be two captains, and to sink their ship !”— As it was in Ceylon some years ago, when the 4 key-note of discord among the Christians in the island was: “Are you for ‘Deviyan’ (Eloah), or for ‘ Deviyanwahansé’ (Elohim) ?” so also at pre- sent in China, not only do the preachers of -the “Gospel of Peace” strive among themselves, but, may be, one of their flock, a good “ Christian” boatman, who plies across the Yang-tsze-keang, or in the harbour of Canton, may think fit, after taking his fare, first to inquire if you be for “Shin” or for “ Shang-Te,” ere he consents to spare your life, and to land you safe on shore. Such a state of things is partly excusable, perhaps, at the outset of a mission, when everything is strange, and the language is as yet little understood. But when kept up, as it seems to be in this case, it injures materially the cause of Christ’s Gospel abroad; and at home it does, assuredly, no good. Here is, for instance, a “‘life-member of the Parent Society of thirty years’ standing,” who appears in the ranks with the very best intentions, as a peace-maker, armed with a ploughshare and a pruning-hook, in token of his errand. But while he preaches peace, he does not seem aware that he wounds his neigh- bours right and left, by brandishing around him his peaceful weapons. For, in his zeal, and while sparing no pains to impress upon the Committee of the Bible Society his own very decided preference for * Shin,” he blames, in round terms, that benevolent and influential Body for giving a premature verdict - against the term of his choice, in order to escape the 5 other unpleasant alternative of acknowledging them- selves unable to decide the point. And, at page 9, he tells them that “it would have been their wisest course to have cancelled their Resolution, especially after such ample evidence was adduced for ‘Shin,’ and to have decided at once for this term.” ‘“ For,” says he, “the advocates of ‘Shin’ had certainly a right to look for this”; but that, on the contrary, “they and their friends were astonished to see the Bible Society still halting between two opinions” (poor limping Body !), “in the face of so much evi- dence,” etc. Why the Bible Society should ‘decide at once,” to please the advocates of “ Shin,” in particular, may not appear quite so clear to others as it does to the “ life- member.” But he must have probed the subject thoroughly. For, with more assurance, perhaps, than charity (page 9), he “thinks the case is now plain enough for any serious-minded, sensible Christian, who is willing to be guided by the Word and Spirit of God, to form a sound judgment in this important matter”;—-a consoling thought, assuredly, for any one who may venture to differ. So that now, who- soever advocates “Shang-Te” instead of “ Shin,” whether in Pe-tche-li or on the banks of the 'Thames, may know, that he can lay no claim to being thought either “‘ serious-minded” in his research, ‘“ sensible” in his opinion, or “ willing to be guided by the Word and Spirit of God” in his decision ;—if, indeed, he is not altogether wanting in conscientious feeling. For, 6 at page 10, we further read, that “the advocates of ‘Shin’ have never wavered or doubted the fitness of that term to render Etonm and ΘΕῸΣ, since they en- tered thoroughly into the question, and rightly under- stood it. Therefore, to surrender it for any other name or title, would be to violate their conscience, and disregard the Word of God altogether.” How then is it, that if “they have thoroughly entered into the question, and rightly understood it,” they have left “out of the question” Ex, Exoaun, and Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ, three out of the five names for “ God” in Scripture ? for they only mention Exonm, and ΘΕΟΣ. 7 ‘““Tantane vos generis tenuit fiducia vestri!” But since the “lifeemember” is at head-quarters, and corresponds with friends in China, he must have had ample opportunity to follow this debate through its successive stages ; and he speaks, no doubt, from book. We regret we are not so fortunate; for we have no friend engaged in the cause; and our only source of information, and, therefore, our only authority on this subject, is the pamphlet before us. We can therefore only venture to submit to its author, that it is just possible others than the advo- cates for “Shin” “may have entered thoroughly into the question,” may have understood it, at least, as “rightly,” and may be as anxious to “ do no violence either to their conscience or to the word of God,” as the stanchest “ Shin”-friend the writer of that pam- phlet may have. For the nuendo at pages 10 and 15, . 7 that scholarship ill accords with conscience, or with an honest desire for the glory of God, deserves no notice, except to show that it retorts upon its author. If it be granted, what, then, may we ask, becomes of those who are so deeply conscientious? Are they no scholars? Neither does it follow as a matter of course that, because a man has resided ten years or more in China, he is, therefore, competent to judge. He may have been there longer, and still think Confucius too old, or Mencius too prosy —besides they were heathen ! —and thus know little of either, and still less of their classical tongue. We have often seen that the case in India, as regards Indian studies. Still less is the question decided by the circumstance alone of “a large majority being in favour of ‘Shin.’” For it is an established fact, in Europe, and, we presume, also in China, that the best scholars, and therefore the men best able to be judges in such a case, are by no means plentiful. Unless it be there, as it is in Turkey, where— BO SE οἱ oF “Α man who knows much, makes many mistakes.” With us, at least, such men are to be looked for in the minority ; and it would appear that it is the ease also in China: for there, among the “ adversa- ries” of “ Shin,” we notice several men of note ;— one especially, Dr. Medhurst, who is well known as a first-rate Chinese scholar. His opinion, whatever it be, is therefore entitled to great deference on any- 8 thing relating to Chinese literature. For, what is required to meet the question is not breadth, so much as depth. And in the words of the Hindoo poet: ““ Ekashchandro tamo hanti na cha taraganairapi.” “One moon does more to dispel the gloom than a thousand stars.” Assertions, or even private opinions, “ ad captan- dum” only, will fail to convince men who look below the surface. But they may, as in this case, perhaps, mislead others, who, having no better opportunity to judge for themselves, will, at once and cordially, de- cide on doing “the right thing”; and, as a pious act, freely— ἐς Dant veniam corvis ; vexat censura columbas.” It seems, therefore, to be the duty of every one who may hope to assist, even a little, in this cause, to do so simply and candidly, with a view to God’s glory alone. That is our apology for offering our opinion at all. But we do so with diffidence ; for we run the risk of an encounter with “ giants of Gath,” in the shape of Committees of men, our seniors in years as well as in learning and experience. They, too, leave us a very forlorn hope of escape, since we are told, at page 10, line 18, that no compromise will do. Either we must side with “ Shin,” and live, or die with “Shang-Te”! And yet, to quote the writer’s words, we have “no choice left in the matter,” but, 9 with other friends of China, to accept the challenge at page 9, sec. 10, and “see that the truth of God is maintained, and his great and glorious name ho- noured, and not dishonoured in China.” ‘‘ Arma parate, animis et spe preesumite bellum !” We will, therefore, crave the patient hearing of our readers, while we touch on the “ extrema rerum” of the case, and lay before them the reasons which have led us, living away from the din of battle of “Shin,” to hear of it without alarm, and to judge of the fight for ourselves. However poor the fare, they will have, at all events, something more than a some- what partial view of “ Shin v. Shang-Te” to go upon. Unless, indeed, some of them have already made up their mind, like that bencher in Erin, who, would | not hear the other side of the question, as it “ puzzled him so!” Meanwhile, we would venture to submit to the Committee of the Bible Society, that they need not take alarm. Neither should they be moved to recall, in haste, their former verdict ; and thus hasten their final decision, by the dread of either “ giving the Chinese a stone instead of bread,’ or of incurring a fearful responsibility to God, and the millions of Chinese, who are waiting for “the bread of life” (page 15). The case, we may assure them, is not so desperate. The bread is not “poisonous”; and all the harm ““ Shang-Te” can do to his own people, is not to be compared with the injury done them by, first, sanc- 10 tioning one reading for the most important word in the whole Bible; and then, after that, expelling it, covered with anathemas. On the contrary, we should say, the Committee of the Bible Society may take credit to themselves for their slow delibera- - tion. For, in this case, if ever, the Arabic adage is true— ENS) Ὁ Onl! (ὁ Kael ΑΜ dy ‘In haste lies repentance; and in moderation, safety.” And— τ . ried | τὸν ΩΝ delat} clits λα}, “Patience is the key to joy; but haste, on the other hand, opens the door to regret.” 1 What then, we ask, is our object at present? [18 not, let us hope, to bend the version of Holy Serip- ture in Chinese, to present circumstances only, by — adapting it to the taste, notions, or prejudices of the insurgents. It is, rather, to give the people of China a translation of the ‘pure milk of the Word,” in a style alike acceptable to the educated, and easily understood of the common people: so that they may live and “ grow thereby,” as long as the Hoang-ho ἊΝ 4 2 . δ 4 i M 11 rolls his wave across the plains of the Middle-king- dom, and there is one man left who speaks ἘΠ the _ peculiar idiom of that land. Our task, then, is to render faithfully into good Chinese the true meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek texts of Holy Scripture. And that requires, on our part,— A) A knowledge of the sense of the original text. B) A knowledge of the language into which the original text is to be translated. Now— A) The sense of Holy Scripture may be twofold :— a) Literal, and— b) Allegorical. The allegorical sense, however, is so uncertain, and depends so much on the turn of a man’s mind, or on his fancy, that it should be carefully avoided in a printed translation of the Word of God, which ought to speak for itself, and be independent of either note or comment. The allegorical sense is fit for oral instruction alone; and that again, to older con- verts only. In our translation of the original text, then, our bounden duty is, to adhere strictly and devoutly— for we have to deal with inspired writings—to its a) Literal sense, which consists in the meaning . attached to it by the author. Tn order to get at that meaning, we must become acquainted with— 12 1) The spirit of the original writer. That implies - a knowledge of— 2) The language of the original; and— The peculiar idiom of that language at the time the author wrote. 3) The time, 4) The manners and customs, and— 5) The external circumstances, of the times in which the original author lived. On the other hand, a truthful rendering of the literal sense of the original text into another lan- guage, implies— 1) An intimate acquaintance with that language, as it is both written and spoken ; 2) With the genius, manners, and customs, 3) The religious tenets, 4) The ideas, notions, and prejudices, of the peo- ple who speak it. Hence it must appear that, in point of learning alone, it is above the power of any one man to bring to perfection the translation of the whole Word of God. Besides, the mind, be it ever so well balanced, will gravitate more or less towards itself, if left long alone ; and the judgment, however correct, must get warped in time, from want of interchange of thought with others. And that must also tell upon the work 13 of translation, which, as regards the Word of God, requires, above all things and besides a holy mind, consummate judgment. A translation of Holy Scripture, therefore, should be the joint work of an assembly of men “ moved by*the Holy Ghost,” and upheld by prayer, towards the one great object,—to give the people, into whose language they translate, the pure Word of God, whole and undefiled. But, as the success of a translation greatly de- pends on the spirit in which the men engaged in it labour among the people, it may not be out of place, perhaps, to digress a little, by first making a few preliminary remarks “on the spirit in which we should carry on our intercourse with the heathen.” Il. First, then, Who are the heathen? They are our “brethren, according to the flesh,”—children like ourselves of the ‘ one God and Father of all,” who, “hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” “ For we are also his offspring.” They are therefore heirs, as well as we, to God’s promises in Christ ; but they are “ alien- ated from the life of God by the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart”; while ~ “ by grace we stand.” 14 Secondly, What are they ? They are our brethren, and, like ourselves, some of them are taught, and some are not; but, generally speaking, they are expert, quick, inquisitive, gentle, willing to be led, and often abundantly learned. As to their moral sense, — it is either blunted or altogether lost, since it depends on their religious belief, which, among the educated, is a kind of esoteric worship, based on ancient writ- ings and codes of morals ; while among the common people it is only a system of gross, and, to them, unmeaning rites. But even the wise among them, as the holy Apos- tle says, “by wisdom know not God.” Confucius, for instance (Sh. Lun. iv. 1), not knowing what to think of “Shin”—“puh yu kwae, li, lwan, Shin”—spoke of it no more than of magic, fighting, or revolt. And yet, constrained by the irresistible “law written in his heart,” he says (ibid. ii. 1), “Tse joo tsae! Tse Shin joo Shin tsae!” “ Worship (or sacrifice) as if it were a reality; worship ‘Shin,’ as if ‘Shin’ were present!” Mencius, on the other hand, declares, that we re- ceive no good from any one but ourselves, “ puh wai,” and says (Sh. Mang. iii. 6), that “man has in himself the four principles of good.” While Plato (Phed. c. 78), seems to give it up in despair, when (saying, “Tt is most difficult, if not altogether impossible for us to know in this life, τὸ σαφές, the truth, on which we may rely and be safe”) he adds, ““We must either find out wherein it lies; or, if that be impossible, we must follow the best opinions of men, and risk upon 15 - that, as upon a raft, our passage through life. Unless, indeed, some one could discover a safer and less dangerous conveyance, ἢ λόγου θείου τινός, or, better still, some divine Word.” The state of even such men among the heathen, is well told by the Buddhist, (Kah-gyur. vol. ii. Rgyatch. c. xiii.), who compares “Srid * las ‘ hbyun "18. hgro* va’ rtag* tu * rmons | | Vum ° par * chhud °* pai * vun ‘ va * hk’hor * va * vjin” || —the ignorant state of beings in this world to “ bees buzzing inside a glass vase.” Yet, amid the gloom that surrounds them, some of those poor creatures “feel after God, if haply they may find Him; for, in truth, He is not far from them.” We well remember a certain festival of Doorga, in Bengal. We were standing with a vene- rable Brahman, by the sacred stream, on which images of the goddess were carried in boats with great pomp, and then thrown into the river, amid the shouts of the multitude. We pointed to one of them, and said to our learned friend: “ Dwija! behold your gods! You see them first made with hands, and then cast into the river.” He made a significant gesture, and replied in his own sacred tongue: “Kim etad Mahashaya, kim ὃ shalabhanji, k’hara, kashtam ityadi kevalam! Murk’hanam etad asti; na cha panditanam.” ‘‘ What is that, Sir? What! a doll, straw, wood, or anything else you like. It is all very well for stupid folks, but assuredly not for the wise.” And then he quoted, with great emphasis, these 16 beautiful lines out of the ‘“‘ Laws of Manu” (ch. i. 5 “ Asididam tamobhutam, apragyatam, alak’shanam, | Apratarkyam, avigyeyam, prasuptam iva sarvata: .” || “Tata: Swayambhur Bhagavan avyakto vyanjayan-n-idam | Mahabhutadi, vrittauja: pradurasit tamonuda:.” || * Jo savatindriyagrahya: : suk’shmo s vyakta:, sanatana:, | Sarvabhutamayo s chintya:,sa eva swayam utbabhau:.” || ‘This world was as yet in darkness, imperceptible, undefinable, undiscoverable by reason, indiscernible, as if it were altogether asleep.” : “Then He who exists by Himself (ΠῚ ΠΡ “1’Eter- nel”), the Most High, who is Himself imperceptible, He made this world, composed of great elements, per- ceptible. He, the Almighty, showed Himself, and dispelled the gloom.” “He, whose nature is beyond our reach; whose essence escapes our senses; who is indiscernible, but eternal; He, the All-pervading Spirit, whom the mind even cannot grasp, even He shone forth Him- self.” Thirdly, What are we who thus take upon ourselves to teach the heathen? We are their brethren. To us the oracles of God have been intrusted, that, pro- fiting by them ourselves, we should make them known to our Gentile brethren. If, therefore, we be “ con- fident that we ourselves are guides of the blind,” let us see, first, how and which way to lead them. If we give ourselves as “ a light to them which are 17 in darkness,” let us see, next, that our “ light shines before” them. It will not, then, be necessary to thrust our “smoking flax” into their eyes, in order “that they may see our good works.” But, behoid- ing them, they will, as St. Paul says, ‘falling down on their faces, worship God, and report that God is in us of a truth.” For it cannot be, surely, that— Ca LF πὸ ly “The lamp that gives light should itself stand in the dark.” Thus impressed with our responsibility as teachers of men, who are to receive their first impressions of ' what is holy and good from us, we will act with wisdom, and consult the law of kindness, in our intercourse with them. We will, then— Fourthly,— Address them as brethren, who are as yet strangers to us, as well as we to them. Wisdom, then, will teach us to make ourselves acquainted, at first, with what our ignorant brethren may believe or think in common with us, in order, as it were, to lessen the distance that separates us; and at once to try and draw nearer to them in love. By thus meeting them on their own ground, as a pledge to τς them of our good-will, we shall induce them to listen to us, as the first step towards their coming over to our side. For it is only by beginning at what they know and believe as well as we, that we, who have preju- dices as well as they, can avoid giving needless 3 Lee Te eres ew ee es πα ee \ a ital χὰ hl) δέν: 18 offence to theirs :—thus gain their confidence, and then teach them what we know and believe, in order to make them one with us in the knowledge of Christ. They, too, have a religion as well as we; but their religion is that of Cicero (de Nat. D. ii, 28), “a rele- gendo,”—‘“‘vain repetitions”; as for instance (Laws of Manu, ch. ii. 79, 82,)— * Sahasrakritwastwabhyasya vahir etat trikam, dwija:, | Mahato 5 pyenaso masat, twachevahir vimuchyate.” || “‘ The twice-born Brahman, who shall have repeated these three (‘ Om,’ the ‘ vyahritis,’ and the ‘ gayatri’), a thousand times, apart from men, shall, in a month, be released from a great offence, as a serpent is from his slough.”—Let us, then, show them, with kindness, that our religion consists in changing only two letters in theirs, in order to make it, as Lactantius (lib. iv. 28) says, “a religando,”—the religion that will bind their hearts—“ arctis relligionum nodis,” (Lucr. i. 931,) with ours in the fear of God. : ΘΟ f97 50 yp fovp [750 ‘“‘ Bring back the wandering sheep to the fold with kind words: when once they are in, then give them the lesson,” says the Jewish adage, quoted by Rabbi S. Jarchi, in his Com. on Eccles. iii. 7. One or two examples will suffice to illustrate what we mean. If, for instance, we attempt to bring a Buddhist Oe, eee 19 Σ “to have faith in God,” let us at once fix his αἵ- tention, by quoting his own authority on the point (Kah-gyur. vol. iv. Rgyatch. c. iv.), and remind him that, according to his own showing, “faith” is the very first of the one-hundred-and-eight doors of entrance to true religion. “Grogs * po * dag* dad *pa* πὶ" ch’hos *snan°* pai‘ sgo’ ste | | Bsam * pa * mi* phyed * par * hgyur *ro|” “Friends!” said Byang-ch’hub-sems-d’pah, “ faith is indeed a door to the doctrine of morals (religion): it renders the mind undivided.” And that— ““ Dad * pai* stovs * τὶ ch’hos* snan ᾿ pai’ sgo° ste | | Bdud : kyi * stovs‘las* yan * dag * pad* hdah* var’ gyur‘ro}” “The power of faith is a door to religion: it enables us to escape clean out of the power of the devil,” etc. If, on the other hand, we have to do with a Taouist, let us introduce to him our doctrine of the “ Word,” who “in the beginning was with God,” and “in whom is life,” and gain a hearing by quoting this remarkable passage in his own chief, Lao-tsze, on the Taou, or Adyos, ch. i :—‘'Taou ko-taou, feich’hang. Taou wo-ming, T’heen-Tih che chih.” “The Τοῦ (ὁ Adyos) that can be expressed in words is not the eternal Taou. The Taou that is not named is the origin of heaven and earth.” And ch. iv. :—* Tsian hi! sse ch’hang thsun! wo puh chi sui-che tsze. Seang Te-che sean!” ‘Oh how subtle ON τὸς δα ξο ποῦς eee eS εοος, ep ἘΕΥΕ Φ, κι er π = ES ᾿ ἄς He is! He seems to have existed for ever. I know not whose son He is. He appears to have been before Te!” If, again, we have to deal with a disciple of Con- fucius, on the subject of “ good works,” and wish to bring him round to hear of the only principle of good morals—‘“ the fear of God,”—we may prepare him for further instruction by reminding him of his mas- ter’s words (Ch. Yung. c. xxix. 4) :—“ Keun-tsze chi choo Kwei-Shin eul wo ee. Chi T’heen yay; pe shin i Sse Shing-jin eul puh hwe.” ‘The wise, or superior, man, in his daily life, realizes the constant presence of Spirits, without any doubt. He acquaints himself with Heaven, and looks forward without anxiety to the coming of the Holy Man (‘é ἀνδρὶ ᾧ dpice” Acts xviii. 31), at the end of the world!”—We might also turn to account the remarks of Téng-thoti-’An, who points to the four things in this chapter of the Ch. Yung, which build up man’s virtue :—1) Khao, “rule of conduct borrowed from antiquity (the Word of God)”;—2) Kiau, ‘“ conformity to Heaven (love God), and to Earth (and thy: neigh- bour)” ;—3) Chi, “ witness of the Spirits (good con- science)”; and,—4) Sze, “expectation of the Holy — Man (final reward of good works).”—(See A. Ré- musat’s ed. pages 367, 422, etc.) Surely, those are materials to work upon, and ready to hand. If, on the other hand, we address a Brahman on “‘the nature of God,” we may open the book (Bhagavad-gita, e. x. 19, 20, 23), and bid him read what Bhagavan 1. ol oly igual ile ΤΥ ὉΠ i BV Fone 4 ex ep δ 21 says of himself :—“ Hear O Arjuna! ‘Nasti anta vis- tarasya me!’ There is no limit to my amplitude!” “ Aham atma, Gurhakesha! sarvabhutashayast’hita: ; | ‘Aham adishcha, madiancha, bhutanam anta eva-cha.” || “Tam the spirit dwelling in the bodies of all beings: I am the beginning, the middle, as well as the end of them.” “Ak’hsaranam akaro s smi, dwandwa: samasikasya-cha | Aham evak’hsaya: kalo, dhataham Vishwatomuk’ha.” | | “ Among the letters I am A (' ἐγώ εἰμι τό A’), the copula in compounds; I am endless time; the omni- present Preserver of all things.” * Ahan sarvasya Prabhavo; matta: sarvam pravartate.”’ | “Tam the Author of all, and by me all things consist,” etc. In thus borrowing from the heathen every useful doctrine or sentiment they may possibly have in common with us, we shall ‘start fair” with them, to lead them onwards to God. In so doing we shall only follow the example of our great chiefs, the holy Apostles ; and that, too, both in preaching and writing. a) As regards preaching. Behold St. Paul on Mars’ hill, at Athens, surrounded by sharp and in- quisitive Greeks. He does not insult them by railing at their tutelary goddess ATHENE, as she stood glit- tering on high before him, within her marble walls, 22 on the summit of her Acropolis. He does not need- lessly offend their prejudices, by trampling under foot her images, nor by throwing down the first altar he meets with in his progress through the city. Far from it. In his unprejudiced love, he makes him- self “all things to all men,” without risk of principle, “that he may by all means save some.” He there- fore addresses his audience so as to gain their good- will, and to rivet their attention. He does not flatter them, but he takes them—“ des veniam bonus, oro,””— “by the smooth handle.” He tells them they are even too much addicted to the worship of the gods. “For, as I passed by,” says the holy Apostle, “1 be- held your devotions; I found an altar with this in- scription, ‘TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.’” That is his text. He then proceeds: ‘Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship; Him declare I unto you!” Wonderful tact! For St. Paul, no doubt, knew the circumstances of the ““ βωμοὶ ἀνώνυμοι" (Diog. Laert. ¥. 10, 3) if he meant one of men. If he alluded to one of the many altars with this inscription, ΘΕΟΙΣ. ΑΣΊΑΣ. KAI. ΕΥ̓ΡΩΠΗΣ. KAI. AIBTHY. OEM. ATNQZSTM. KAI. ZENM. (see Carpzov. Antiq. Sac. Cod. pp. 84, 85, and 476, seg.), he did not, at all events, apply at once the words, “τῷ ᾿Δγνώστῳ Θεῷ," to ᾿Ιάω, 1, but he applied them to their rightful owner, to “the God” of those to whom he was going to preach “the true God.” So also, in order to im- press his hearers with his doctrine, he does not quote from the Targums, of which they knew nothing. _ But he quotes from some of “their own poets,” and takes as witnesses to the truth of his teaching, no less a man than the Athenian Cleanthes, and his own countryman Aratus himself. ‘ You must believe what I, a stranger, say; for I only repeat what certain of your own poets have said, Tod γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν, ‘ We are also his offspring.’” Whose offspring? Of “the God” they ignorantly worshipped: and who is He? Aratus says (Pheen. i. 1—5) :— "Ex Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα--- -πάντῃ δὲ Avs κεχρήμεθα πάντες" τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐιμέν ---- And Cleanthes (Hymn. in Joy. i. 5) :--- Κύδιστ᾽ ἀθανάτων, πολυώνυμε παγκρατὲς cuel Ζεῦ,---φύσεως apynye— ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν --- While Plato (Timezeus, sec. 6, ed. Bek.) reminds those same Athenians, that they were living in the land first chosen by their tutelary goddess; and that they were governed by laws which made them excel all other nations in merit, “ καθά περ εἰκὸς γεννήματα καὶ παιδεύματα θεῶν ὄντας," “as it behoved men born of gods and brought up by them.” Those words were familiar to the people of Athens, who claimed their origin from him, of whom they said themselves that he was “ Πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν te.” (Sch. in Arat.5. Hom. Il. ά. 544, etc.) Ζεύς, ““ ὅθεν ἔχομεν ἀεὶ τὸ ζῆν." (Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 2, 24.) He was Diespiter, sc. Dius-pater, Jupiter, in short; the “unknown God” preached by ca gs ce an ae “ ͵ 24 St. Paul himself. Hear that, O ye worshippers of “Shin”! . We see, then, how the Apostle, having won his audience by showing them that they as well as he were brethren,—children of the ‘unknown God,” whose servant he was,—brings round his heathen hearers from the worship of their own gods, to that of the only true God. They listen attentively. They even quietly bear being told they must “ not think that the Godhead is like unto their Gods”; but that they ought “to repent,” and “to prepare for the judgment to come.” They hear of the “Just Judge” as of “ that Man whom God hath ordained,” and through Him of “the resurrection of the dead.” So that the same men who exclaimed, at first, ‘‘ What will this babbler say ?” now begged they might hear him again; while others ‘clave unto him, and believed”; and (Lucian. Philopatr. ad fin.), with Triephon, said: “Ἡμεῖς τὸν ἐν ᾿Αθήναις “Ayvwotov ἐφευρόντες, καὶ προσκυνήσαντες, χεῖρας εἰς οὐρανὸν ἐκτείναντες, τούτῳ εὐχαριστήσομεν, ὡς καταξίιω- θέντες τοιούτου κράτους ὑπήκοοι γενέσθαι." ““ΕῸΓ our part, having found the ‘Unknown Gop’ of Athens, and having worshipped Him, we will, with our hands lifted up to heaven, thank Him for our having been thought worthy to be made obedient to such a power as His.” b) As St. Paul sets us the example in preaching, so also does St, John, especially, show us how to write for the heathen. What could be more hea- thenish (since it was heretical as well), than the 25 use of the word Adyos, originally borrowed from the Greek school, and made an eon by the Gnostics, who were already numerous at Ephesus, where St. John wrote? or yet the Platonic terms, ἀρχή, μονογενής, ζωή, φῶς, and πνεῦμα, all of Gnostic stamp? But for that very reason, and because St. John was writing to refute the impious tenets of those heretics, he adopts their own expressions, to show them what was the ἀρχή, and what the Adyos, and the ζωή, and the φῶς, are in truth ; and he opens his Gospel, written for them especially, with these imposing words: “Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Adyos.” Had he adopted the style of St. Matthew, who, for instance, wrote for Jews, he would have missed his aim, and said nothing directly, to reach at once the most prevalent heresy in his day. But, under the guidance of the Hory-Guost, he made plain to them, not that “Jesus is the Son of David”—for that did not concern them much—but, that He is ὁ Adyos, “the Word” of Gop, “ by whom, indeed, all things were made”; that He exists ἐν ἀρχῆ, “ from the beginning”; that He is ὁ μονογενής, “the only be- gotten”; ἡ ζωή, “the life”; and τὸ φῶς, “the light,” which sheds abroad among men, τὸ πνεῦμα, “ the Spirit,” or divine light and life. Such examples as those show us plainly that it is no easy matter to become “thoroughly furnished” unto the work of “ preaching among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” Good intentions alone are not enough to make “ good workmen” that “need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word 26 of truth”; who, while they move among a class of men, “del ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες apyal,” “ are yet able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” We enjoy no longer the apostolic gifts of tongues and of miracles. We have human powers and human energies only given us, as instruments to work under God, and for Him. We therefore come far, far behind the holy Apostles, although in the same field of labour. And yet we think sometimes we may improve upon what they did, and accomplish more with less trouble! ‘evo nec studium sine divite vena, Nec rude, quid possit, video ingenium: alterius sic Altera poscit opem res, et conjurat amice. Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam, Multa tulit fecitque puer, sudavit et alsit; Abstinuit Venere et vino,”— says Horace; “ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν ἵνα φθαρτὸν στέφανον λά- βωσιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἄφθαρτον," says St. Paul, who, in the discharge of his apostolic office, made good use of the learning he had acquired at the feet of Gamaliel, as plain “Saul of Tarsus.” He sanctified his knowledge in the using. “But,” says, perhaps, some one who thinks so much study for the work of the ministry needless, “it pleases God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe.” So be it. But, that is not “by the preaching of foolishness.” We have to preach Christ crucified, and Him alone, “the wisdom of God and the power of God.” That is all, and that is enough when it is done. But that is the question. And as a hint for private thought elsewhere than in India, or China, Do we preach Him as He is, or do we preach our own views of Hm? and do we, “like wise master-builders,” really contribute to the edification of his Holy Church, by laying no stubble, but only precious stones “ upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Curist Himself being the chief corner-stone”? Pearls are precious things; but we may, incautiously, cast them before swine. And the ‘““Word of God,’ which we all claim as our weapon, is indeed “ sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.” But, let us bear in mind, that “the sword” is not the “drill” for it. This comes first. For if the arm that holds the sword be dead, or paralyzed, or even untaught, what happens? LEither the soldier cannot grasp the hilt; or, if he does, he fancies he fights, but it is only “as beating the air”; for he neither knows where nor how to strike. So that, after great exertions on his part, he sinks exhausted; but his foe rises unhurt, and the battle has yet to be won. Who, then, is sufficient for these things ? Speaking earnestly, and from experience, we say—very few. And yet, unless things have much improved of late years, what is sometimes the case, as regards mis- sionaries? Men, from whatever cause, are scarce, or 28 unwilling to go out. And while, as Rabbi Tarphon (Pirke Ay. ii. 15), says: mob ΠΟΝΟΣῚ ssp on naan ἼΣΦ ΠῚ ΟΡ odypmi—* The day is short and the work is increased; yet the workmen are slow, though the reward be great” ;—and missionaries are recruited from whence they can be had. Until lately, a boy who was too dull to learn a trade, was at once destined by his fond parents to become the promising schoolmaster of the village. And we might mention like instances of men sent abroad, with very good in- tentions, no doubt, and on a fair salary too, to “do something” as preachers of the Gospel in India or China, who, having perhaps tried their abilities at some common-place occupation at home, had com- pletely failed. We do not attach blame to any one in particular. We only wish to combat the somewhat prevalent and very erroneous idea that, “ because, for instance, a man could not ‘get on’ in the Church at home, he may do well enough for the heathen abroad.” He is out of sight, certainly; but that is all. For, if “to do well” means to plant or to build up the Church of Christ among the heathen, we can assure our readers that a missionary requires, if pos- sible, better training, more learning, more judgment, more tact, more patience, more perseverance, for his work, than most clergymen at home; although these even cannot well do without a fair allowance of the latter qualities especially. What happens, however ? Some men arrive in India, and, we fear, also in China, as missionaries, who are less able and worse informed than the first educated native they meet with. This one turns out rather too quick, too sharp, and, perhaps, too learned also; and he soon finds out who is the abler of the two. He then, civilly— —‘ naso suspendit adunco TIgnotum”— and walks away with a smile from the man of God, and from his cause. Thence come, humanly speaking, the failures which, apart from the irresistible effects of climate, seem to mark the progress of some missionaries abroad. They go forth into the finest field of labour, “ already white to harvest,” to follow men, who, after having spent their life in “ turning many to righteousness,” already “shine like stars” in the Eastern firmament. But because they “ count no cost,” perhaps, but that of the journey, and because they do not weigh beforehand— —‘ quid ferre recusent,” ‘Quid valeant humeri,’— when they begin to work, they find themselves unequal to their task. Thence too it is, that, among the number of converts in such countries as India and China, we hear of so few “ Areopagites,” and that “honourable councillors” are fewer still. For it is easier, we allow, to scatter tracts in abundance, and innumerable copies of the Bible, among a multi- tude always ready to receive, than to convince one educated man who is a gainsayer, by bringing home to him the error of his ways. And yet, in those τῇ δεν: χε 30 countries, the multitude is only the lump, and educa- ted or privileged men among them are the leaven. Unless we be satisfied with unleavened bread alone, we cannot leave these out. They are, through their influence, as it were, the “head” of the people. Nowhere more so than in China. And in India, one single converted Brahman will influence the whole of his heathen village, far more than the whole of that village, if converted, could influence him, alone, and still addicted te his Brahmanical rights. As, when out on a foraging expedition, we may clear some brush- wood, and throw down a few mud-huts; but the country is not ours until its fortresses are taken. When they fall, the rest follows ;—not until then. Now, in India, the Brahmanical caste, especially, and, in China, philosophy and national associations of nearly four thousand years, are strongholds which, as yet, have proved impregnable. And, one might almost say, their garrisons deserve well of their coun- try for defending them so well and so long; though it has been against an inferior force; if not, against an army partly disorganized. “But,” says some well-meaning man, “ though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong-holds.” So they are, thank God! for no other weapons could avail. But good weapons do not, of themselves, make good soldiers. These must “endure hardness” and “ strive lawfully.” Besides, there must be union in the camp; there must be a well-concerted plan of attack, and unity of action among the besiegers, led by able officers, under one master-mind. If not, then after a protracted siege and sundry defeats, the be- siegers are at last, perhaps, obliged either to raise the siege, or to ask the besieged city to capitulate, for they cannot take it!—“ Well!” says another, “ but we have-this treasure in earthen vessels, that the ex- cellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” Certainly; for what excellency or power could we arrogate to ourselves? But who said that? Nota raw recruit, but an Apostle, who, though he was inspired, yet thought no better of himself! We, however, are but plain “men,” to whom it pleases God to grant a certain measure of His grace, in order to enable us to do a little. We cannot, therefore, presume, ἃ priori, on obtaining supernatural gifts. Neither can we possibly be excused for going to “fieht the good fight of faith,” unless we have, first, done our best as men, to test our strength, to fit our harness, and to try the temper of our sword. And then, but only then,—like faithful soldiers of Christ, before going forth to fight under His banner, (and not every man his own way,) let us on our knees receive His blessing; and then we may safely place with Him alone the issue of the battle. We all have heard of the young preacher, who, treated his village congregation to what, in the country, is called a “high,” or “fine” sermon. After service, a village dame was overheard saying to one 32 of her friends: “A mighty fine sermon that!” “Sure!” replied the other. “Ah, yes!” said the first, ‘‘ that blessed word ‘ Mesopotamia,’ it does me good!” It is often so, we know, even where the minister and his people have the same ideas and language in common. How, then, is it in China, where, the spoken language is so hard to master, and the people differ from a preacher of the Gospel, “toto ccelo”; since they look upon him in the light of a “demon” addressing them, the ‘ Celestials” ὃ ‘““Reported,”—“ Doing well!” ΙΥ, The foregoing remarks will, we believe, abundantly show, that, in our intercourse with the heathen, whether by word or in writing, we must be able to borrow their own ideas, if we wish to make ourselves understood of them. This general rule bears directly on the work more immediately before us ; that of— c) Translation, which is, generally speaking, the rendering of, sometimes, new ideas, expressed in a lan- guage unknown to a particular people, into the lan- guage, and through ideas, for the most part in familiar use, among that people. It is, in short, rendering one idiom into another. > οἱ pl tae Gal gi 5! “Through Thee alone I have attained to Truth, O Thou Truru itself! Thou hast imparted it to me! And here I stand to thank Thee, Lord! mine only Sun and my God!” | The Greeks therefore adopted, more frequently, because more conformably to their ill-defined notions, the plural, θεοί, “‘ gods”; or, with the article, οἱ θεοί, “the gods” of Olympus. Thus, Orpheus hardly ever uses the word θεός in his hymns to the “ gods,” but always θεοί, “ gods.” Hesiod mentions the Deity one-hundred-and-two times, viz., ninety-three times in the plural, θεοί, and nine times in the singular, θεός, in which it is three times feminine, once applied to a tutelary god, and five times it refers to a god previously mentioned ; but never with the article. And Homer, in the Iliad, Books i., iii., and v., uses the plural, θεοί, fifty-four times; while the singular, θεός, is met with only nineteen times, with reference to some particular god ;—except, perhaps, iii. 1. 381, where ὥστε θεός may be taken ina more general sense; yet never with the definite article, ὁ θεός. For Homer could not well have defined his own indefinite notions of θεός, to whom he attributes evil passions as well as 45 good. But we find that, as the ideas of the Greeks on this subject became better defined (though still incorrect, since they still spoke of “ gods,” θεοί), the use of the article with θεός in the singular became also more frequent, as, ¢.g., in Aristotle; and in Plato, who says: δῆλον δὴ τοῦτό ye, ὡς τῶν ξυνακολουθησόντων ἐσόμενον τῷ θεῷ δεῖ διανοηθῆναι. πάντα ἄνδρα: “It is evident, then, that it behoves every man to decide on | ‘being of the number of those who follow after God, τῷ Θεῷ." (de Legib. iv. 7.) The Apostles, then, could not do better than to adopt the term “ὁ @eds,” for the “only true God,” thus dimly portrayed in the Greek philosophers ; and having clearly established by their teaching, and, perhaps, also by their quotations from the Septuagint, who ὁ Θεός is, they used Θεός without the article, when necessary, without risk of being misunderstood. “O Θεός, in Plato, and ὁ Θεός, as used by St. Paul, both grew out of the Θεός of Homer; but the Θεός of St. Paul is qualified by ὁ Θεός, as used by him. ““ Θεός," in “ ὀυχ᾽ by’ ἄνευθε θεοῦ τάδε μαίνεται" (Il. v. 185), is different from “ἐ Θεός, IN “ἡ yap κατὰ Θεὸν λύπη μετάνοιαν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἀμεταμέλητον κατεργάζεται" [Ιὑ 15 the same word, but with either a heathen or a godly meaning. We may therefore expect to find, in the New Testament, the use of ὁ Θεός more frequent than that of Θεός only, which is actually the case; as, 6. g., in the Epistle to the Romans, ὁ Θεός occurs one-hundred-and-thirteen, and Θεός only thirty-nine, times. In like manner, the use of the definite article pre- 46 fixed to the generic term for “God” or “ Deity,” seems general in most languages that have an article, in order to specify the “ one true God.” In the She- mitic languages, either the article or the emphatic form is used; but only seldom in Hebrew, in which a special and distinctive mark was, of course, not re- quired, since the.‘ people of God” knew of none other God but Him. When they forsook Him, His name went down to their idols: they did not raise the name of their idols to His “‘ excellent greatness,” as other nations did. Thus, in Coptic, as we have seen, the definite article is always prefixed to μου, god, to designate “God,” uort, dt, in Memphis, and nuorte at Thebes. In Hungarian, also, the definite article is always prefixed (except in exclamations : Isten veled!) to Isten, “ God,” thus: “ Az Isten te- remt,” God created. So also in Albanian, Περντί, “God,” is always found with the definite article, thus : “ σξίλι μούντ τὲ vreyéye φάγε βέτζμε ive Tepvria,”’—“ who can forgive sins but ὁ Θεὸς only?” “ kiw irece μπὲ Tleptive,” ἔχετε πίστιν (τοῦ) Θεοῦ. As in Greek there is no indefinite article, since εἷς means ‘ one,” not “a,”—for “ εἷς Θεὸς, μία πίστις," means “one God,” “one faith,” not “a god,” “a faith,”—Oeds, not being an abstract noun, was under- stood to mean “a god,” not “ the God,” Gop.” Thus, “ore θεός" (Il. iii. 8381), where mention is made of Venus, can only be rendered ‘like a god,” and not “like God.” The use of the article was therefore ne- cessary, in order to define the idea and to apply it to 47 the “ one God.” But in other languages, that have both a definite and an indefinite article, the word “God” takes neither article before it. The “one idea” is best expressed by the term “‘God” alone. We never find, 6. g., ‘sa Guth,” in Gothic, but always “ Guth,” “God,” without the definite article; 6. σ. “ sunaus Guths,” ὑιοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ; and “ habaith glaubein Guths,” ἔχετε πίστιν Θεοῦ. This obtains also in other languages derived from the Gothic, as, 6. 4.5 in English “God”; ποῦ. _ “a” or “the God,” etc. But although in this instance the use of either article would at once break the one- ness of idea contained in “God”; yet another satis- factory reason for the use of “God,” without the article, lies, we believe, in the meaning of the word “Guth,” “God,” itself. It is akin to “ Khuda,” or ‘“ Khudai,” thus explained in the Persian dic- tionary, gi Ql» p- 282: JI poy csldd 9 as tice AL, al πὸ el μον els ob eslsdel dyed a Used ieee Crwsl > Tog δὰ, i Vol, , cele , “‘ Khuda’ and ‘Khudai,’ (with dhamm in the ee syllable), is a name which belongs to the Most-High, like ‘ Innan’ and ‘En-m1ian’; and is contracted. Its complete form is ‘Khuda,’ which means ‘a being who has brought himself into existence’ (Swayambhi, self- existent, 7), l’Eternel). It is also given to a ‘lord,’ or ‘king’ (3,\as.).” ‘“ Guth,” God, then, may probably mean “ self-existent”; and so, it might be a far better rendering for “Jehovah,” than “Lord.” But since there can only be one self-existing “God,” πὸ article is required to define Him better. If, therefore, the term for “ God,” already existing in a language, implies the object of the highest vene- ration-of which the people is capable, it may be adopted in the translation to express “ God”; provided always, that it is appropriate, and not at variance with the original. For instance, “ Exonm,” “ God,” means, originally, “entitled to worship on account of His power.” It would be rendered into Tibetan by “ Dkon- meh’hog,” which means properly, “ Chief of rarity,” “the rarest Being,’ and is used to denote “God.” This word. does ποῦ, it is true, correspond in its ra- dical meaning with the Hebrew original; but as it corresponds fully with its acceptation, as a term of the highest adoration, it is fit and admissible. If, then, the best term already existing, be not adequate to ex- press the original, it must be amended by teaching, and brought to the standard of the original ; but in no case should a “new term” be coined and introduced, for that would be preaching “ strange gods,” indeed. We have seen that this experiment has been tried in China, without success, as it was formerly tried in Japan, by the Jesuits, who rendered “ Deus,” by “Deous.” But this signally failed; and the word “kami” a “god,” has been adopted instead of “Deous,” by Drs. Gutzlaff and Bettelheim, in their respective versions of the New Testament into Japanese. In thus unscrupulously borrowing from a people 49 its own term to express “God,” we are borne out, lastly,—by the ancient versions of Holy Scripture, all of which adopted, for “ God,” the term in use at the place and time the translation was made. Thus,— The Targums adopt πος, “God,” “᾽ (which they read ‘J78), and also δ, “object of fear,” in the emphatic form, to render “ Ex,” “ Exoan,” or ‘* HLOHIM.” } In like manner the Samaritan version has mmx 2. Λε. or 552.) and sometimes ἘΠῚ Λ 2.5.0. “angels,” and x2m«x, “powerful,” to express “God”; all in the emphatic form. The Syriac Peschito always reads, in the emphatic form also, JX], who is Ss payo $05 oof ros <0? Jaito jon 52 yootkas .4.:.» Ἰσιδ) yootkan δυο, “worthy to be praised, high, and mighty in valour over all gods; who isat the head of all genera- tions, king from everlasting” (Lib. Adami, lib. i. p.10). In Arabic, “ Exoutm” is rendered by allt EL-ILLAH, “Gop,” always with the article, in order to distinguish it from 4\ Ivan, “god,” applied formerly to idols; as Herodotus tells us (lib. il. ὁ. 8), ““᾿Αράβιοι--- οὐνομάζουσι δὲ τὸν μὲν Avovucov, ᾿᾽Οροτάλ" τὴν δὲ Οὐρανίην, ᾿Αλιλάτ᾽᾽" ᾿Ὀροτάλ, OF ᾿Ολατάλ, is Sei ΑἹ “ Alah ta’ala,” “God Most-High”; and ᾿Αλιλάτ colayy| “ Ali- lahat,” means “goddesses.” Pocock (Specim. Hist. Arab. p. 108) tells us that they worshipped those gods, but as inferiors to “ Ex-m1aun,” “God,” whom 5 50 they addressed in this manner: HO) Cu peli! Soul she ley aha CC » oo Od U6 3 “MT devote myself to Thy service, O Gop! I devote myself to Thee; I do so indeed! Thou hast no equal but Thy fellow, over whom and all He has, Thou art alone supreme.” The Egyptian version adopts, as we have already seen, pt ‘ Phnuti,” the usual abbreviation of Φι or Φ “the,” and nort “god”; which corresponds exactly with ὁ Θεός. It is the singular of nennorre or nennort “our gods,” the words by which “ the gods of Egypt” are mentioned in ancient Egyptian MSS. (Champoll. Syst. Hier. vol. ii. p. 30, and pl. 13, etc.). And here we cannot but notice the remarkable use of the definite article Π in Mraz “ P-tah,” sometimes also “ Phtah,” 604 or 604 (and not eas, as in Jablonskii Panth. Ag. p. 50, and Opuse. t. 1, p. 382), “the god” of Egypt. His monogram, in hieroglyphical in- scriptions, as well as in hieratic MSS., is 0, the - origin of the letter M, which itself is the definite article. So that, in ancient Egypt, the article “THE,” thus alone, stood for “the god” or “GOD” (Salvolini, Camp. de Ramsés-le-grand, p. 98). For Mraz or “Hgaoros (“udaicroc ere naz ne,” Zoéga MS., in H. Brugsch. de L. prop. Aigypt. p. 17), like Ζεύς, and the names of other such gods, were, each of them, only the epithet of an “individual”-god, in their respective countries. In Egypt, therefore, norre or wort (or rep, arp Salvol. 1. c. and Uhlemann. Insc. Roset. 1. 6, 7, p. 15, 16), and not, Πτὰς (like “ Θεός, 51 not “Ζεύς, in Greece) became, with the article n or Φ, nnorre or pt, ὁ Θεός of Christians; as being alone “pt tire uinort” “the God of gods” (Psalm exxxv. 2, ed. Ideler.). The Ethiopic version adopted AM\n “ Amlak”; a word related to pb “Molech” or “ Moloch” of Tyre and of Carthage, and applied to false gods also, as in Acts xiv. 11, OLA: AAANT: ANA: TAY: “‘and they said: The gods (amalekt) have taken the likeness of men,” etc. In order to render “ Exoni,” the Armenian ver- sion, “regina versionum,” as Lacroze calls it, re- tained the word “ [jumnews, Asdwadz,’ ‘“ God,” which formerly belonged to idols. Thus, in the letter of Valarsaces, king of Armenia, to Arsaces, king of Persia (Moses Chor. lib. i. c. 8), we read: Upauh Buguenp Ephph bk Sadavs apng width ἔκ yqunhkep ny ἔκ & fuk dkp wumneSng “ Arsaces, king of the earth and of the sea! whose person and image is like unto our gods” (asdudzots). The Georgian version renders “God” by “ Ghmert,” “ Ghut,” “God,” equally applied to “ gods,” and of the worst character too; as ¢.g., in Wakhoucht (Geogr. of Georgia, p. 10), where he says that Pharnabaz set up an idol called Armaz; to which his successors “shesmines kerpni Zaden da Aphrodite” “added the idols Zaden and Aphrodite,” “aramed ese Armas udi- desi iqo qovelta ghmertta”; ‘nevertheless that Armaz was held in greater honour than all the gods” (ghmertta). 52 The Gothic version renders “God” by “Guth,” which was, at one time perhaps, the name of an idol of Northern-and of Middle Europe (comp. Odin, Wuo- dan, Gwodan, Gudan, etc. Grim. D.M. p. 120, seq., Edd. Lex. Myth. pp. 598, 606, 631, seg.; which, how- ever, as well as “‘ Wadda,” (Abulfeda H. anteisl. p. 14), rather belong to “ Bud,” or “ Budd’ha”’). Lastly, the Slavonic version adopted the term “ Bogh,” “God”; a word of Indian origin, probably from “ B’haga,” which Culliica B’hatta (Comm. on Laws of Manu, p. 5) says, expresses “‘ sovereignty” : “sishwaryadinam “ B’haga” shabdo vachaka.” Hence comes “ Bhagavan”; and also, perhaps, the Persian e “ Bagh,” which is said in the Li οἱ» to be x» al “the name of an idol.” : Vv, The foregoing remarks will have prepared the way for the consideration of the question at issue,—Is there, or is there not, in Chinese, an appropriate term to render ody ExLonm and ΘΕΟΣ To which . must be added by Et, Hoy Exon, and Ὃ ΘΕΟΣ; all equally translated “ Gop.” Several terms, we find, have been invented in order to render “God” into Chinese; and, as a matter of course, they have been “ discarded each in succession” (see p. 10, and p. 12, of “ Shin v. Shang-Te”). We will, therefore, leave their shades in peace,—Dr. Bowring’s Egyptian symbol ©! included,—and pro- 53 ceed to consider only the three terms found in classi- eal Chinese, that appear available for the rendering of “ God.” These are T7HEEN, SHIN, and SHANG-TE. But ere we enter into the subject, we must— First, Examine briefly the literal meaning of. the five terms for “God” in Holy Scripture ; then— Secondly, Consider the literal meaning of each of the three terms, T’HEEN, Surin, and SHanc-Tz, in clas- sical works. And then— | Thirdly, We will show, from the Chinese version of Scripture itself, which of those three terms can alone claim to stand as a substitute for Ex, Exoan, Etoum, ΘΕΟΣ, and ‘O ΘΕΟΣ, in the Word of God. I. First, then, as to the literal sense of IN Lass ΤῊ Daas Pl, OYON. It is, properly speaking, the part. Kal of the primitive root 78, or On (like MD from Mi or MD; WY, UY, etc.). This root, although obsolete in He- brew as “‘ verb,” is, nevertheless, frequently met with in its derivatives, Oa, pois, bs Oey, Oy, nox, etc. ; and in the Sabean, δ ἢ “ powerful.” Its correspond- ing forms in Arabic, 1 sh from whence Syl “ first,” “foremost,” and JL! “ government,” etc., are also Σ in common use (comp. ba Sm and gro, Att. εἱλέω, ἴχλω, etc., which convey the idea of “ twisting” 54 —like the gnarled roots of the oak, “‘roboris”; strong and firm). The root Dw or, On, then, means— a) to be “strong,” or “ powerful”; and thence— δὴ) to “take precedence”; to “ be first.” Those two senses are closely connected; and they are sometimes found in the same derivative; 6. g., bys pl. pro, and bw pl. pow. “powerful,” “ chiefs,” among men. N, then, means — 1) “A powerful man,” ἧρως ; 6. 4., DMI ὍΝ ἀρχὼν ἐθνῶν (Ezek. χχχὶ. 11.), and pl. Ὁ ΞΔ by, οἱ γίγαντες (Ezek. xxxii. 21, etc.). 2) “Power,” “strength”; 6. 9., mivyd Ὁ Syb-wn my) Do2y — “It is in the power of my hand to do you harm,” ἰσχύει ἡ χείρ μου (Gen. xxxi. 29, etc.). 3) “GOD.” In prose it is seldom found alone; but in general, it is construed with an attribute, or witha genitive; as 6: 5.) troy bs (‘Enwodv), the Most High God” (Gen. xiv. 20, 22); "IY by, “the Almighty God,” ‘8, pM om, Ἢ, NID dy (Exod. xx. 5, etc.). It is also joined with Diya oy Syn “God, the God of thy father” (Gen. xlvi. 3, etc.). In poetical language, on the contrary, it is very frequently found alone; as, δὸς WIN YIN dns “ T would seek unto God,” etc. (Job v. 8, viii. 5, 18, 20, etc. ).—It isalsoapplied to “a false god,” ἀν ἫΝ (Is. xliv. 15 ),—or joined to an attribute, as, 133, ἢ] bs TES, AMA ΝΣ (Judges viii. 4, 33, etc.). It is evi- oa 55 dent, however, that to such “gods” the word bs is applied only by synecdoche, since, in Deut. xxxii. 21, they are said to be ben “no god.” by is also used— 4) in construction, with the meaning, “of God,” as an attribute of excellence or of power”; 6. φ. 28 ‘IS “the cedars of God,” “goodly cedars” (Psalm Ixxx. 11);—7S “1 “ great mountains” (Psalm xxxvi. 7, etc.) (comp. Hom. Il. a. 141, εἰς ἅλα δῖαν, δῖος ᾿Αχιλλεύς ;— Hesiod. Op. 299, Siov γένος ; and 479, χθόνα δῖαν, comp. with ἀπείρονα γαῖαν, v. 487; Call. L. p: 97, δῖα γύναι, etc.). by ‘“ Ex,” is also to be traced in other Shemitic dialects. Sanchoniatho (ed. Orell. p. 24) says: “Κατὰ τούτους γίνεταί τις ᾿Ελιοῦν ( Y) καλούμενος “Ὕψιστος, παραλαβών δὲ ὁ Οὐρανὸς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀρχὴν--- ποιεῖται παῖδας δ᾽ λον (ON, Sal) τὸν καὶ Κρόνον," κιτλ. Damas- cius (in Bochart Geog. Sac. ο. 707) says 4180, ““ Φοίνικοι καὶ Σύροι τὸν Κρόνον "HX καὶ Βήλ καὶ Βολάθην {MN ba) ἐπονομάζουσιν" (see also Damasc., p. 384, ed. Kopp); to which the “apocryphal” Sanchoniatho (c. vi. p. 18) adds, that the allies of In (98) “’Enoelw ἐπεκλήθησαν," were called Exoim (Οὐλωμὸς, in Damascius, p. 385). From “ Iz,” or “Ixus,” Cumberland (Orig. Gent. v. i. pp. 29 and 473) derives “ In1um” (see also Nork. Bibl. Myth. v. i. p. 142; Creuzer Symb. v. ii. p. 347; Boetticher R. Myth. Sem. pp. 4, 5), ete. The radical “ Ex.” plays also a conspicuous part in Faber’s “Cabiri,” and in his “Pagan Idolatry”; as also 56 in Bryant’s Anc. Mythology throughout (see, espe- cially, v. i. p. 16, seg., and p. 297, where Osprph “ Hom-pi-El,” the oracle of Ham (the Sun), is given’ as the etymology of ’Oudardv ἐριβρόμου χθόνος (Pind. P. Od. 6); while the same radicals, transposed, be- come, in his hands, *5” sph-by “* El-Hom-pi,” "Ολυμπος). Movers (Phéniz. v. i. p. 254, seg.), and Seyffarth (Grundsiitze der M. pp. 52, 66), are worth reading, in connection with this subject. In Sy, too, we may probably look for the root of Ἥλιος or ᾿Ηέλιος (comp. FN yb 333 &'& Psalm xix. 6, 7. “ ἄναξ ᾿Απόλλων," etc.), the first god wor- shipped by the heathen, Divs or Agni, the Sun. Sick- ler (Cadmus, pp. 65, 104) derives “Ἥλιος from yn, and Ἠέλιος ar ‘8, which he translates, ‘the Power that gives light,” and, “the greatest Power.” But, Lib. Adami, 1. i. p. 46, and also p. 88, decides the question : 1402] oof) cLratoeS oraanael” LA oticas “\\a} Δ.) σίας 20,0 σιίραφ “Do not wor- ship the Sun whose name is Adonai (or Adoni), whose name is Kadusch (72), whose name is Ex, Ex! (or In, In!)”—a name which seems alluded to in Isaiah xiv. 13, “uly uciadsas ὃ “from the stars of In.”—(In Psalm xxii. 20, St. Matt. xxvii. 46, St. Mark xv. 46, the Hebrew word by has been pur- posely retained in the Syriac.)—So that Ἠέλιος or "Hwos.might come from YX"N'T Osa ; or from wiry “My god, Agni!” Unless some fistipld of Bryant would make it up of Yeo)’ wd’, "Hy-oce, “ My god! myrtles !”—exclamations (probably) frequent at By- 57 blus, during the festivals of Adoni (Ἄδωνις), and Ba’altis (’Adpodirn), when, as Bion (Epit. Ad. 74, 77) tells us, Venus — —* πόθει καὶ στυγνὸν "Admvy,” and exclaims: ““Paive δέ μιν μύρτοισιν, ἀλείφασι, paive μύροισι" 1 We find 5¥ also preserved in Pheenician names; e.g., “ Cadmilus,” the fourth Cabirus, who was of Pheenician extraction, is Sem tp ( who stands before God”; or (according to Boch. Hieroz. ii. 36), Gye Dp “the oracle of God” (see also Gesen. Mon. Phen. p. 399, seg.).—We find it also among the Sabzans; e.g., Lib. Adami, pp. 294, 309, seg: Sultods Sujata. τ δὼ. \iljaco White δηλ το Hamam-il, Hathm-il, and Nothr-il, and Zarz-il, and Pashr-il, and Haltz-il:—and in Ethiopic writings too, Lib. Enoch. 9. vil. 9, OWE : AMALUS 2 APAADEU® : MPH: ΗΦ ΔΈ : PANN: HENNCAAA: MARA: 2PM: £40.0 :— And these are the names of their angels: Samyaza, who is chief of them, Urakibarme-el, Tha- mi-el, Ramu-el, Dan-el,” etc. In the Samar. Pentateuch ON is rendered, either ‘by 2%, to distinguish it from 2%, when taken to mean “strength”; or by x2m% “ powerful”; as, Melchize- dec, in Gen. xiv. 18, is said to be "“χδτηγα, x2M°K2" 334 “priest to the Powerful in strength.”—Lastly, in Arabic we find also” Jl “lun,” as a name for “' God.” 58 Another etymology for by has been proposed by Schultens (Com. in Prov. p. 23), where, speaking of the particle 78, he says: “ radix est M8, pro *?8, vel by, que Arab. est }\ and 1") adstrinxit, con- strinxit. Inde, secundario adscitum adstringit vin- culo jurejurandi quod ἀμ} cum pl. \y\; inde bs θεὸς ὅρκιος, Deus jurisjurandi preses et sancitor. Qui alia docent analogie non litant.” Doctors differ, indeed! for J. D. Michaelis offers ΟἹ “a benefit”; and Gese- nius favours him with |ys “Gott,” as subsidiary, “ quod vulgo-‘bonum’ significare volunt.” But we have seen that, even among us,—“ quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.” . For it is placed beyond doubt that Sy comes from bys or by, by the fact, that all participles of verbs “Ὁ have a long = zeri, which does not alter in construc- tion ;—thus ?8 from 78 makes 78 in constr.; 6. g., 83) by, Ἢ by. Whereas, in words derived from verbs nay the = zeri is shortened in construction; θ. Jey by from τὸν makes ?% or ᾿ξ in constr. as, PIAS, YYAY, ND, ote. The one leading idea in by, then, to be gathered from the foregoing remarks, is that of power, and therefore of pre- or ea-cellence. GOD is called ON Ex, as being Tue Micuty, toe ONE ΑΒΟΥ͂Β Att, Tue First. From that idea of power, and excellence, grows, as a matter of course, a feeling of awe, which power 59 inspires, and which leads men to respect, and to worship it. Thus, from Oy “ God,” comes MX “to swear by God”; and probably, also, noe, which, al- though not found in Hebrew as a root, is of frequent occurrence in Arabic: {j\ and 111: to “ worship,” Sey to “serve,” whence eal and δι “worship”; and all to “stand in awe”; from whence some derive a “* TLAHOUN,” πος “ Exoan,” “Gop.” He is called thus, they say, s ἌΝ 4), because “ He j is feared and worshipped.” And here, we may compare the name for “ God” in Ethiopic, A®An “ Amlak,” which is derived from Af*"n “ Amlaka,” fourth conj. of ®An “ Malaka,” to “command,” or “govern”; ®n, “ Malaki,” a “sovereign”; from whence An “ Amlaka,”’ to “honour a sovereign,” λατρεύειν ; to “ serve as God.” Hence AS*n “ Amlak,” the object of that worship, Gop; ὁ. g-, Matt. iv. 10, “ γέγραπται yap AAIHANAC: APAnN : THI: Onl : AheER: FLAN: Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σοῦ (Amlak’ka) προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις" (tamlak). As regards Πὰς, however, it would appear more probable that, being itself an intensitive form of its primitive 28, it became parent to the verb nbs to “worship,” than vice versa. One thing, however, is certain, that those roots are all akin to one another; and that Os (da, Oy) is most likely the oldest, as it is the simplest of them all. Fiirst Concord. Heb. 60 v. FIPS says: 0095 BID) pdf 73> 1D τὸν j? 27S oom ps proces pd oom «ὉΠΟΎ nds opp sw 10) PS “Tt isa ἶρις πος np coh Ox bee cos ppm ofa asd verb derived from FON, and from its intensitive sig- nification (plur.) DION. The root of both (FON and How) is by like as among the Arabs, where the verb MOX is derived from the noun [sui]. And, behold, according to this explanation, you are con- strained to bring the word (8) to a fountain-head, and under the root 75%, bs ; from whence nox, now.” (See also the remarks of Dathe, in Glassii Philol. Sac. vy. 1. p. 60, seq.) We have, then, the ideas of power and supremacy, as well as of adoration of that power, expressed in— I. FON or MYON “Exoan,” “Gov.” In Chald. nox Erin, from whence WPS “divine,” etc. In Syr. and Sab. JaX7Y “ Anono,” “Gop”; from whence Lak) “divine,” and aX? “alah,” to “reckon as God.” In Samar. 324% “ Anan,” “ God,” thence ANAL “divinity.” In Arabic a, or al “ Tra- Houn,” or “ Inan,” “God”; from whence tll, cogil, etc. πος is seldom used in the singular; and then, Gesenius says, only as, “either an Arameism, in poetry, or in inferior style.” It means — 1) “any god,” 18) Nd niby-bs by) “ he will not 61 regard any god” (Dan. xi. 37; Job xii. 6; Hab. i. 11; etc.). But 28 means especially — 2) “GOD”—for mioyn ὁ Θεός---κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν ; 6. J. Sys my mete * Will not God search it out from above?” (Job iii. 4, etc.) And its plural— TL. OWON “Exon,” which is far more fre- quent, is used — A—in a plural sense, for — 1) “all gods” ;---Θεοί; 6. g., DISD ros the “ gods of Egypt” (Exod. xii. 12)— pos bap mim. Sig “the Lord is greater than all gods” (Exod. xvii. 11; 2 Kings xix. 18), etc. 2) “angels”; who are also called Dios ‘2 “sons of God” (Psalms Ixxxii. 1, xevii. 7, etc.). 3) “kings” and “princes”; “judges” and “ ma- gistrates” (Psalm Ixxxii. 1,6; Exod. xxi. 6, etc.). But OFAN is also used — B—in a singular sense, for — 1) “Tue ONE Gop,—GOD.” In this case, espe- cially, the plural is the “ pluralis majestaticus vel ex- cellentiz” ; mp2> 39 the plural of “ powers or virtues,” which is used in expressions of sovereignty, as, 6. g., DIS, AW, pps, etc. (See Gesenius Lehrgeb. p. 663, seq., and Hebr. Gr. p. 237, seq., whatever Ewald, Hebr. Gr. p. 641, 3, may say against it. Also Danzii In- terpr. Ebr. Chald. p. 26, seg., and p. 149.) Some cri- 62 tics, however, think that in ΤΟΝ, the plural form, is intended only to imply “plurality of persons” in God. For instance, Glassius (Gram. Sacra, can. xvii. and can. xxv. not., or vol. i. p. 44, seq., of his Philol. Sacra, ed. Dathe) says:—1) Nomen nriby non est nomen appellativum, sed proprium; nec in significato suo formali dominium seu dominatum notat. Igitur ad hanc regulam, que de vocibus appellativis, (292 JIN) dominium significantibus, agit, referri non debet. Certum igitur esto, Elohim per se non de- ‘ notare dominium, etc.—2) Cur nomen hoc plurale in SS. Deus sibi indiderit—e scripto verbo Dei eruen- dum et cognoscendum est. Illud vero Sacrosanctz Triados personarum in una simplicissima essentia divina, mysterium clarissime tradit, et voce plurali DIPS idem mysterium exprimi, descriptio creatoris Elohim Gen. i., et alibi seepius in SS. tradita ostendit. Addendum tamen, nomen Elohim proximo significatu personarum pluralitatem in Divina essentia tantum innuere, non determinate Trinitatem, etc. (Dathe refutes him in a note, ad 1.)δ. And Buxtorf, Lex. Heb. v. pvby says: ‘ Cabalistice nbs dicitur,” quod On by “* Deus sint,” etc. But the fact that ὈΠῸΝ is also applied in Holy Scripture to “one idol” only, as well as to Gop, “hos abunde confutat,” says Gesenius (Thes. L. H. p- 96). For, if DYI78 be not, generally speaking, “a term to express only adoration, and the highest pos- sible degree of veneration for God, irrespective of the persons of his Triune Essence,” why then, may we 63 ask, is poy not always used? And why is it inter- changed, almost arbitrarily, with Oy. and especially with πον in the singular; both of which we find in the Hebrew text in precisely the same acceptation as oy ? Aben-Ezra is of this opinion, when he says : Gen. 1. 1, γρὴρ ΤῊ ot pnp 039 ped owbh 5 ww ob whip ph W2 0/37 PPS 577} Sy ΡΨ N39 ΤΥ EPH pob3i—39 7 ὁ Ὁ’ pred 59 "2 ‘7 ofv3) ov7h “ After that we have found ποις, we know that ὈΠῸΝ is the plural thereof; and the origin of the use of it is according to the genius of the lan- guage; for every tongue has its own honorific terms; —and, in the ‘holy tongue,’ the way to express ‘honour,’ as, for instance, to a superior, is, to use the plural, as in Adonim (‘ lords,’ for Lord), Ba’alim (‘ masters,’ for Master, etc. ).” Except in the Samaritan Pentateuch, therefore, where ὈΠῸΝ is occasionally rendered »smrx2%, and in the Targum of Onkelos, where it is sometimes found as pmo (e.g. Gen. ix. 6), with a plural significa- tion, poy is always rendered by the singular in the ancient versions. In the Targums, it is translated by maDN or more frequently by %; in Syriac, by aX]; and in Arabic, by al! Ex-Innan, ὁ Θεός. The principal instances besides poy which occur to us at present, of the usual name for “God” being a plural form, are the Persian οἷον ‘ Yazpan,” and the Cingalese “ Drviyan.” “ YazpAn” is, like “ E- LOHIM,” ἃ plural with, for the most part, a singular signification. It is rendered in Persian dictionaries - 64 by 5,6 “Tafri,” a Tatar word, used in Uighur, and in most other Turkish dialects, except the Osmanli, to mean “ Heaven,” and also the “ Most High,” God. ““Yazdan” is thus explained in the pit οἱ» already quoted (p. 790, etc.), σῦν ἡ & Sl ee Klop Sd GS Gly ke de eal Ye las dill y oye by IS 2 5 Gul pe Gelb os ae ar ΕΝ ΟΝ, Lee καλὰ 5 day sah iT >» wR lye sadiy 37 EASUD 5 uF sla ὑπὸ, Yb close Lae» weal lew duyS \yGe “ Yazdan—with Feth’, Sukun, etce.—It is one of the names of God, the Most-High, the glori- ous God. It is also the name of an angel, the active principle of good, who is liable to neither passion nor evil. Others say that ‘ Yazdan’ is the creator of good, and that ‘ Ahriman’ is the creator of evil: and also that Yazdan created the light (‘ Yazdan,’ 7. ¢., ‘ Ahuramazda—Khudai’; Wilson P. R. p. 228; and J. G. Rhode, Relig. des Zendv. p. 209, seg.), and Ahriman, darkness. Doctors call Yazdan a false god; but poets call the true God by that name.” “Yazad,” and “ Yazdan,” are mentioned as two out of the one-hundred-and-ten names for “God” (‘¢ one-hundred-and-one,” Wilson P. R. p. 110.) in use among the Parsees, by Hyde (de Rel. v. Pers. p. 175); who at p. 178, says: “‘insuper sciendum est quod Dei vocabulum Yezad (Ized) aliquando tribuitur ange- lis,” etc. (exactly like E778) ; ὁ. g. “ Vanand- Yezad,” 65 “Ham-Yezad,” etc. The plural of ὁ» “ Yazd” is “Yazdan,” which occurs frequently in the Minok- hired; 6. φ. ii. 18, 27; iii. 2, etc. It represents, in the singular, the Zend “ Yazata,” (Sanscr. “ ya- jata,”) which means “ worthy of worship”; as, for instance, in this passage of the Yagna, ch. i. 9, Ni- vaedayemi . handarayemi . Mithrahe . vouru . gaoyaotois. hazanroghaosahe . baevare . chasmano . aochtonamano. Ya- zatahe; “I call upon, I praise Mithra, who multiplies (cattle) living things; who has a thousand ears and ten-thousand eyes, and is called by the name of Yazata.” (Burnouf, Yacna. p. 209. seq., 376, etc.). *¢ Yazdan,” or “ Yazata,” is like Ex, Exoan, and Etouim, both the attribute and the name of deities, in the Zend religion (Spiegel, Pars. Spr. p. 139, seq., 190; Wilson, P. R. pp. 106,129). And it seems to correspond with O'%, not only in its being a name in the plural, given to God, in a singular sense, but also in its application, like Exon, to angels, and to more deities than one. ‘“ Yazdan,” then, answers to “ θεοί, when this is used collectively in a singu- lar sense; as, 6. 9.7) “ θεοί φύουσιν ἀνθρώποις dpévas”— “ἐ θεῶν βία καὶ νέμεσις" (Soph.). Although “ Yazdan” is very frequent in Persian poets (as, 6. 4φ., Chr. Sh. Nam. ii. v. 204, ed. Vullers, Si lox phos 2 Liss, etc.), it has not been adopted in any of the Persian versions of the Bible for “God.” The only word in use is ys, the name by which Ahurmazd calls himself, “ Khuda sam humnam,” “ KHUDA is my name,” or “I am self-produced” (see Wilson, P. R. p. 110). 6 66 In like manner, in Cingalese, ‘‘ Devryan” (the ac- cusative plural of “ Devi,” or “ Deviya,” “a god”), is declined and used in a singular sense, out of respect. Thus, “ Deviyan visin—polavat metchivai”—‘ The earth was created by God” (instr. θεοῖς), “ Deviyangé putiyd,” “‘ sons of God” (θεῶν), ἢ ete. | We may, perhaps, also mention, in connection with this subject, the word “ΝΣ, DIS “ Addir, Addirim,” “ oreat, noble, magnificent,” etc.,— applied to the “name” of God (Psalm viii. 2)—to God Himself (Psalm Ixxvi. 5)—to princes (Nah. ii. 6, ii. 18)— to kings (Psalm cxxxvi. 18)—to saints (Psalm xvi. 3)—and to gods (1 Sam. iv. 8). sory? 5 moyn ΡΥ ΝΠ ody ὍΘ “Who shall: deliver us ‘out of the hand of these mighty gods?” A.V.—and (Isaiah x. 34) IIS “By the Mighty One.” In this latter acceptation, especially, it may be compared, as Uhlemann does (Quousq. tandem? pp. 15, 16), with the ancient Egyptian word ATiR, or rep Salvol. * The affix of “ respect,” “ wahanss,” is added to Deviyan, thus, ‘“Deviyan-wahansé”; which stands to “Deviyan” considered as a respectful address, as “Elohim” does to “ Eloah”—as an appellative for “God.” The choice of either term caused great ex- citement in Ceylon some years ago. The edition of the Bible printed in 1834, uses “Deviyan” and “De- viyo.” The edition of 1840 adopts “ Deviyanhanse” and “ Deviyanwahanse.” (Analyse de Textes, a. Egypt. p. 198, seg.)—or norrap (H. Brugsch. Sai-an-Sinsin, pp. 13, 1, 3, 7, 8, pp- 16, 6, pp. 17, 1, etce.), and NeTeR (de Rougé, Mém. p. 165)—in Coptic norte “ god.” For our own part, and since the necessary doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity cannot be determined by the plural D'T7N alone, we are well satisfied to take this plural, practically, as an expression of respect only, for GOD,—Three in ONE. Anything else, belongs to the mysterious nature of Him before whom - Angels even veil their faces; and whom we, poor sinners, shall never see, till—if we be found worthy— “we shall know Him even as we are known of Him.” Until then, let us in awe, but in faith and hope, lay our finger on our mouth, and worship in silence. We might, possibly, “ intrude into those things which we have not seen,” and “ be vainly puffed up in our fleshly mind.” It would appear, therefore, sufficient, that in rendering Ὡ ΤΊ δ, we should adopt a term which, like 5S, implies “ THE ONE,” and not “any.” The plural prox is found governed by a verb in the singular; as, ¢.9., pid NT “creavit dii,” 2.¢., “‘qualibet persona divina,”’ says Danz. (Interpr. Eb. Chald. p. 149)—and also by a verb in the plural; as, 6. 5... WNIT ΠΥ pws mvys “Let us make man, after our own image and similitude” (Gen. i. 26; xxxy. 7). OJ is also construed with an adjective in the singular; as, Ἢ pry ; and in the plural, 68 DY pring “The living God.” And it is used to mean— 1) “a god.” DON |S “There is no god” (Psalm xiv. l, etc.). 2) “an idol.” 398 faa“ Dagon our god” (1 Sam. νυ. 7). 3) “a tutelary god.”—Oeds ἐπιχώριος, pros mS “Where is your God?” (Deut. xxxii. 37; Joel ii. 17; Jonah i. 5, etc.). 4) emphatically, “GOD,” with the article DT>NT - “The only true God”; as in Arabic, a) Ex-anan, ὁ Θεός ; for instance, al Mal ¥ “there is no God but Ex-mnan,” do, ἢ cll» 5 US, p> py “Yea! He is, He alone! and everything perishes, except Himself” (Epist. Ibn. Toph. ed. Poc. p. 117), ΠΤ" "5 proyn Nin. “For the Lord He is God” (Deut. iv. 35, etc.). 5) without the article, ortos also “GOD.” It is for the most part interchanged with MIM; ¢.g., ΤΙΝ mim’ and pds mo, etc. “Generally speaking,” says Gesenius (Thes. L. Heb. p. 97), “in the historical style, ὦ. ¢., Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings (and in the Proverbs), M7’ is more frequently met with than poy. In Job, MM occurs in the prologue, which is in prose; but in the poetical parts we find "ἃ and poy. In later writers, z.¢., Eccle- siastes, Jonah, Daniel, etc., MM is scarcely to be met with. In the Psalms it varies according to their 69 date. In Genesis, the use of 717" in some chapters, and that of DYN in others, is so remarkable, as to have induced some critics to suppose the book to have been written from two different documents.” And Fiirst, Conc. Heb. p. 48, says :—“ commentitiis et fictis diis omnibus vi potentifque superior, qua voca- buli origine factum est, ut synagoga inter Elohim et Jehova sic discerneret, ut illud potentiam jmf> p20-by3) ($3n> 123 Sew) y3f vindicemque scelerum justitiam,* — hoc misericordiam gratiamque significare diceret.” 6) ὈΠῸΝ is used adjectively (like bs, 4); 6. 9, pros 3 “The mountain of God,” 7.¢., “a very high mountain” (Psalm lxviii. 16, etc.). 7) also adverbially, with a prefix; as, nding εν" prion “urbs divinitus magna” (Jonah ii. 3). The Greek expression “ ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ" (Acts viii. 20, and 2 Cor. x. 4) corresponds to prod s—if it be not itself a Hebraism. (See also, Schultens, Harir. Consess. iv. p. 36 ; and compare ἘΆΝ; with. Σ)Ὁ al ; and this, too, with Cic. de Orat. i. 23, and ii. 42, ** dicendo deus,” etc. ) The one leading idea, then, in EL, ELOAH, and ELOHIM, is, power with EXCELLENCE ; and worRsHI, as attendant on that power. * Comp. ‘ Συδέκ᾽ and “ Συδίκ, ὁ. 4.) PTY “ justus,” the father of the seven “ Cabiri,’ according to the Pheenicians, in Euseb. Praep. Ev. lib. ii. 10, p. 39, c. Pee De ae eee ae οδα 70 28 We now come to consider the literal sense of— IV.—@EO>. Hermes said of Θεός: ‘ Θεὸν νοῆσαι μὲν χαλεπὸν, φράσαι δὲ ἀδύνατον “‘ Roges me,” says Cicero (de Nat. D. i. 60) quid aut quale sit deus; auctore utor Simonide—qui, “quanto, inquit, diu- tius considero, tanto mihi res videtur obscurior.”— ‘“‘Concedo esse deos, doce me, ἐεῖνητ, unde sint, ubi sint, quales sint corpore, animo, vita,” etc. That incertitude as regards the nature of θεός is nowhere more plainly set forth than in the variety of etymologies for θεός, offered by the Greeks themselves. Herodotus (Eut. ii. 52) says, that the Pelasgians θεοὺς δὲ προσωνόμασάν σῴεας ἀπὸ Tod τοιούτου ὅτι κόσμῳ θέντες τὰ πάντα πρήγματα καὶ πάσας νομὰς εἶχον" “ called them ‘ gods’ (θεούς) from this circumstance, that they, after having put (θέντες) all things in order, took in hand the whole management of them.” Now, “τὸ. ποιῆσαι, (says Athen. 1. xi. p. 503,) θεῖναι πρὸς τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐλέγετο." ‘‘ Hoc pacto (adds Scap. p. 919) θεός erit conditor et creator universi.”—Phurnutus (de Nat. D. i. p. 140, ed. Gale) agrees with both: ἔυλογον δὲ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς θέσεως ἐσχηκέναι τὴν προσηγορίαν---- ταῦτα δ᾽ ἄν εἶεν οἱ θεοὶ, θετῆρες καὶ ποιηταὶ τῶν γινομένων ὅλων --- The gods are ‘arrangers’ and makers of all that exists.”.—And further, he adds, that of old, men took to be θεούς, “ gods,” ods εὗρον ἀδιαπτώτως eee ee! Ἵ ΨΈΝ ἢ “the bodies they saw continually revolv- ing,” etc. This ἐρέω is is borrowed from Plato (Cratyl. sec. 31, ed. Bek., and Euseb. Praep. Ev. i. p. 29, ¢, seq.), who says, that the Greeks at first worshipped the sun, the moon, the earth, the stars, and heaven, “ ἅτε οὖν αὐτὰ ὁρῶντες πάντα ἀεὶ ἰόντα δρόμου καὶ θέοντα, > , 7 - ΄ a a a \ > ‘ > ἀπό ταύτης THs φύσεως τῆς Tod θεῖν θεοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐπονο- paca.” “ As they saw those bodies continually re- volving in their course, (‘éfe@eiacav, θεοὺς ἐκ τοῦ θεῖν ὀνομάσαντες τοὺς ἀστέρας᾽ Clem. Alex. Adm. Gent. p. 15, ed. Col.), they called them θεούς (gods), from the rapid motion (τὸ θέειν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι τρέχειν, καὶ ὀξέως κινεῖσθαι, Simplicius, com. in Epict. Enchir. p- 223, ed. Salmas.) inherent in their nature.” (Sick- ler, Cad. p. 4, derives θέω from NYN, “to wander”). To all of which, Macrobius (Sat. i. ὁ. xxiii. p. 319, ed. τ ) assents, when he remarks (on this line in the Iliad ἀ 424 :--θεοὶ δ᾽ ἅμα πάντες érovto);— θεούς enim dicunt sidera et stellas ἀπὸ τοῦ θέειν, id est, τρέχειν, quod semper in cursu sint.”—Or, θεός may come ἀπὸ τοῦ GewpeicOar.—(Stob. Eclog. Phys. p. 4.) “ὁ μὲν θεὸς αὐτὸς οὔτε ὁρατὸς οὔτε αἰσθητὸς, ἀλλὰ λόγῳ, Kal νόῳ θεορατός.᾽ “God, verily, is neither to be seen nor heard ; but only to be contemplated through the rea- son and the mind.”—Or, from θηέομαι, admiror. Scap. p- 253.—Or, from θάω, 1.9., θάομαι, “ specto cum cura”; 6. 4. θασόμεναι τὸν "άδωνιν (Theocr. Id. xv. 23 ; Damm. Lex. Hom. v. θάω), and,—‘‘comparatio vocis Latine ‘deus,’ cum Graco δέος timor, pro quo δέος 72 (cum adspiratione lit. δ) dicere potuerunt @éos—sua- det, ut credamus Θεὸν Grecis dictum fuisse ἃ timore © et metu, quem tonitrua et fulmina, ex ethere missa, mortalibus incutiant. Eadem forte ratio est vocis pds Elohim apud Hebreos,” says J. V. Ὅν be Scap. Lex. p. 919). Lastly, Bryant (Anc. Myth. i. 13) derives θεός from the Egyptian Hermes, ‘‘Taut, Thoth, or Theuth”; and thinks it was originally written @ei6 !—‘“ Videtisne,” says Cicero-(de Nat. D. ii. 70), “ut a physicis rebus, bene atque utiliter inventis tracta ratio sit ad com- mentitios et fictos deos? quod res genuit falsas opi- niones.”” ’ὔ “Ti τοίνυν, ὦ τὰν, ἀποκρινοίμεθα ὅ, τι ἐστὶ ‘ Θεός" - ἢ > ? ᾽ ? For ΘΕΟΣ neither comes from θέσις, nor from θέω, nor yet from θεάομαι, nor from anything essentially Greek. Its origin, like one element of the Greek lan- guage, is from the East; and θεός is derived, probably through Diu-s, Déus, from the Sanscrit root Drv, Div, implying, 1.)—brilliancy; and 2)—the Sky or Heaven. DIU is a substantive, masculine, feminine, and neu- ter, which occurs in the Vedas. As mas. (nom. sing.) DIU-S, it means “Agni,” “fire,” the “Sun”; as jem. it implies “a ray οἵ light,” “day” (Lat. diu); as neut. it stands for ‘‘the Sky,” or “ Heaven,” ἀιθήρ. DIV is also frequently found in the Vedas; 1) as * Max. Tyrius Serm. i. p. 2, ed. H. Steph. 73 an adjective, “brilliant” and 2) as a fem. substantive, for the “ Sxy,” or ‘‘ Heaven.” It is itself a defective. noun, and, in later Sanscrit, it borrows some of its cases from the kindred words (Dyo, Dyau), DIAU-S, fem. and mas., “‘ the Sky,” “Heaven” ; and Dyu, (diuti), Div, neut., ““ the Sky,” or “ expanse of Heaven,” etc. Thus, DIV adopts for its nominative sing., DIAUS; as in the Rig.-Veda (Asht. 1, Adh. 2, varg. vi. 13), “ Mahi DIAUS prit’hivi-cha”; “ great Heaven and the Earth.” In theacc. sing. it makes regularly, DIVAM; nom. and acc. pl., DIVAS; gen. sing., DIVAS, and gen. pl., DIVAM; dat. and abl. pl., DIU-B’HYAS, (from Div,) etc.; and DIV means — 1) “ the Sky,” “Heaven.” Sama-Veda (Artch. i. prap. 4, Ard’h. 2, dag. i. 7). Endra jahi harib’hirupa Kanwasya sushtutim, | DIVO amushya shashato DIVAM jaya DIVA vaso. | | ἐς Come, O Indra! with thy golden-coloured steeds, and listen to the fond praise of Kanwa! Mount, O thou Gem of Day (“ treasure by day,” Diva), into the Sky (Divam), into the vault of Heaven (Divas), that overrules us all!” - And (ibid. pr. i. dag. ii. 10) “ paro jadid’hyate DIVI,” the Sun “ who shines forth in the Sky” (Divi); and (dag. iii. 7) “Agnirmurd’ha DIVAS kakut” (ὀφθαλμός--- ἀελίου ? in Ol. iii. 36), “O Chief Agni! bright globe of Heaven” (DIVAS); “ὦ ᾽ναξ "Ἄπολλον! (CEd. R. 80) ὦ τὸν αἰπὺν οὐρανὸν διφρηλατῶν “Hue” (Aj. 845). And Rig.-Veda (Asht. 1, Adh. 2, varg. vii. 20), “ DIVIVA 74 chak’shuratatam,” ‘“ like a glance of the eye into the bright expanse of Heaven” (Divi), ete. DIV means— 2) “Heaven” personified, as father of Ushas, or Aurora—(Sama-V. Arch. 1, prap. 4, dag. ii. 1),— pratyu adarshyayatyu = ch’hanti duhita DIVA: “ Yon- der dawns in her beauty, the beaming daughter οὗ Heaven” (Divas),—’'Has ὅτε Sia φανήῃ (Il. w. 417, ete.) ᾿Ηὼς λαμπροφαής---θεὰ θνητῦις φαεσίμβροτον ἦμαρ ἄγουσα." (Orph. H. 71.) She is called (in Sama-V. Arch. 1, prap. 2. dag. iv. 4) “priya Divas,” “the beloved of | Heaven”; and, (ibid., Arch. 2, prap. 8, Ardh. 3, xi. 3) Sa no adyab’haradvasur vyuch’ha duhitar DIVA: “ The daughter of Heaven, at dawn, has brought to-day’s weal with her.” This intimate relationship between Div and Div, is further shown by such passages as (ὁ. g., Rig.-Veda, Asht. 1, Adh. 1, varg. xii, 9) “ ata: parijmannagahi DIVO va rochanad ad’hi”: ‘therefore, O ye surrounding (Maruts), come hither ; whether from the Sky (divo) or from the brilliant solar Heaven.” “Divo” is here explained in the commentary by “ Div-lokat,” ‘ from the world of DIU,” the highest region of the atmosphere ; and “rochanat,” by “ dip- yamanad Aditya-mandalat,” “ from the brilliant sphere of the Sun” (see also varg. xxvii. 9, etc.). That brilliant sphere was (the feminine) “ mahi,” or “uttara” DIAUS,—“ ἡ ἐσχάτη περιφέρεια ἐν § πᾶν ἵδρυται τό θεῖον" (Zeno, Diog. Laert. vii. 1, 70),— ὁ ἀνώτατος réros— orbis ceelestis extimus”—(Somn. Scip. 4)— ὅν αἰθέρα προσωνόμασαν, ἀπὸ τοῦ θεῖν ἀεὶ. τὸ ar τὰς Ἂ om ae ἦν: πὰ ΤΩΝ δι ᾿ oF RRR re sf) Wee τῷ τ Sea ἀΐδιον χρόνον θέμενοι τήν ἐπωνυμίαν aitd—eis καὶ ἀέδεος---ἔχων δὲ καὶ περιέχων ἐν ἁυτῷ τὸν ἄπειρον χρό- vov.* It is also taken for “" Heaven” :—’Eva μὲν οὖν τρόπον Οὐρανὸν λέγομεν τήν οὐσίαν τὴν τῆς ἐσχάτης τοῦ παντὸς περιφορᾶς --- εἰώθαμεν γὰρ τὸ ἔσχατον καὶ τὸ ἄνω μάλιστα καλεῖν Οὐρανόν, (“ celum, eternum, immen- sum, neque genitum, neque interiturum unquam” Plin. N. H. lib. ii. 1, seg.), ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸ θεῖον πᾶν ᾿ ἱδρῦσθαί φαμεν. (Arist. de Celo, i. 3, 13; ii. 1; i. 9, 8.) It was supposed (as e. g., by Anaxagoras) to be of fire, in which the planets, gods (θεοί), revolved. “Opowos δὲ τῷ ἀρίστῳ (θεῷ) otpavds—Oeodrs μὲν οὖν (ἔλεγεν) ἔχειν τὸ πολὺ πυρίνους, aS Plato says (in Diog. Laert. iii. 72, 74, ed. H.); and Pythagoras, “Td μὲν οὖν ἀνω- τάτω μέρος TOD περιέχοντος,---Ολυμπον καλεῖ---Ὁὁ Διὸς φυλακὴν ὀνομάζουσι, τὸ τἄάυτην ἔχον τὴν χώραν πῦρ. (Stob. Ecl. Phys. 1. p. 488; Arist. de Ceelo, i. 13; in Preller’s H. Ph. p. 78, etc.). * Comp. the Zendic “ Zaruana-akarana,” the “ un- created,” “ eternal time,” which on that account has no “ Fravashi,” or “ Farohar,” or first ideal prototype, or cause (fra-ushi, “life, intelligence”). (Vendid. 19, 480, etc.; Burnouf. com. on the Yagna, pp. 269-71 ; Vendid. Brockh. 361; Wilson, P. R. p. 131, seq. etc.). Comp. also “" Χρόνος," “‘ Time,” who, says Damascius (c. 125), was a god of the Sidonians; worshipped in Gaza as ᾿Αλδήμιος or “AdSos, which Bochart (G. sac. ii. 2,14) explains by pon bys. from abn “ the course of time,” etc. 76 “Uttara” DIAUS (“Swarga, Suralokau, DIO, divau” Amarak. i. 1), answers, perhaps, in a certain sense, to “nasr” and to “carn,” among the Egyptians (Lep- sius Ag. gitterkr. p. 8, seq.) ;—to “ Zian” or “ Dgah- Itan” of the Buddhists (Upham Hist. B. p. 74, seg., and Rgya-tcher. RP. passim.) It is also the “ Hwang- T’heen” and “Ta-T’heen” of China; and it may like- wise represent the “ Gimle” of northern mythology; the “ upper-world of light” (Finn Magnus. Eddaleren, tred. B. p. 217).- It is doubtless meant as, that — “Land er heilagt* Er ec liggia se Asom ok Alfom ner.” “ Athereal land Which I see lying Near the gods and the elves.” —(Grimnis-mal. iv.) It was,— “‘ Tonea convexi vis et sine pondere cceli,” (— Ceeli lucida templa,” Lucret. i. 1013); quod “ Astra tenent celeste solum, formeeque deorum.” —(Ov. M. i. 26, 72). 2 * “ Feilagt,” means “ethereal”; or, as F. Magn. (ibid. p. 11) says: “hvad der tilhérer den hae, klare Himmel”: “ what belongs to the high, clear Heaven” (see Sdlar-Lioth, 23). Hence “ heilig,” “holy.” A good land to look forward to! — a ferns oN REM gS foe ee PS oe 17 “Uttara” DIAUS, was the You) ἢ “bright (air or) sphere” of the Sabzans, in which the self-existent phenix lived, ¢.g., Lib. Adami, 1. i. p. 144. —80 123 bye waa eotas Leis (OOL3? $0200 Pato Joo 15" πω ayo 165 bie Joo up jon 1:91» 123 Yoon Jato 60 Ἰ.. ἢ» 1.2 Yoon 123 —00 ἸΔ» js} Loot jor 2] Sco Joo 155 Joy pl} . Boous lato» fiso joo toons An [Ae] “ Even before all the worlds were made, ‘ Ferho,’ the (great) divine phenix* already existed. As the divine * A symbol of the Deity. Compare the “ hawk” and the er “hat” in Egypt, etc., and “ Patanga,” “ bird,” an epithet of the Sun (in S.-V. ii. 6. 1, 11, 3), with pile jlals, the “royal falcon” darting from the Creator’s hand (Djel. D. p. 130). In the Ber. Rabba, c. xix., it is said that ‘all animals hearkened to Eve’s voice, and ate of the forbidden fruit— yn ‘oy mae Sins vnn Sin we ons AyD — except one bird, by name ‘ Chul’ (Phenix), of which it is said, ‘I will multiply my days like (those of) Chul.’ ” “ This bird,” says R. Jannai (ibid.), ‘A NIN MY BON *‘ lives a thousand years, then burns his nest, and lives again and evermore,” etc. Norberg renders Lu; (volatilis) by ‘‘ Pheenix,” and he compares it (Lexid. p- 125) with the Persian “ Ferouer” (com. Yagna, p. 271), which he derives from .,4,, “to fly.” He must have meant .;,, ‘‘ Pari,” the probable origin of “Fairy”; which in the wil οὐ» IS 90 (an, Op- posed to “ Div,” an evil genius. 78 Ferho existed, in him also did the divine king of glorious light appear. And from the divine king of glorious light, the (“‘ Oyar zivo”—bright atmo- sphere) realms of light were produced ; and out of that “‘oyar zivo,” came the “fire of life”; and out of the fire of life, came forth the powerful light of the “ king of light.” DIAUS was also the AGAN or “ Heaven” —staraih . maonho . Huro. anaghranam . raochananham . qadhatanam — of the stars, of the moon, and of the sun; self- existing lights that have no beginning,” mentioned in the Zend-avesta (Yagna, Com. c. xxxvii. p. 343, seq.); and it ranged high above (the lower and. neuter) DIU which was inhabited, as we have seen, by the Maruts (winds or genii), “ prishnimatara:,” “ born of © the earth” (Rig.-V. Asht. 1, Adh. 2. varg. ix. 10; Adh. 3, varg. xv. 4, etc.). There, in “the higher Heaven” (Swarga, Suraloka), in the “mahi,” or “uttara” DIAUS, “κόσμου δύνα- pts,” the procreating or generative ῬΟΎΤΕΕ, -- Ἥλιος παντοκράτωρ, Agni, DIU-S,—dwelt in splendour, sur- rounded by his revolving satellites (θεοί). He was adored as nta2, pH, AUOYN-pH or dpH,* not in the Lybian-desert alone, but in the neighbourhood of * Compare qa-pn, 6 τοῦ pH (ὁ τοῦ Διός.--δῖος, rather than. norpo “the king”) as origin of “ Pharaoh” (in Burmese, P’harah, “ God,” “ Lord”) with “ Poti- pherah” (ne-re Φρη “belonging to @pu”), who was 79 Memphis, and by countless multitudes in his own gorgeous temple at Thebes (rane Sah.), the capital of his kingdom (kaz-nrAe—Kérros—’Av-yurros), the “land of Egypt.” He was bys, Ba’al, “lord” or “master” in Canaan :—(“O Ba’al, hear us!” 1 Kings XVili. 26—® δέσποτα κόσμου, κλῦθι λόγων, Orph. H. vii.). He was, and is, even now, in China, “ Choo-jih yay,” “ the Lord, the Sun,” in the worship of Heaven (Le-ke c. x. and xyiii.). And in Ceylon, he is still adored as “ Hi-Ru,” or “I-Ru” (comp. ba-px, Hari) one of the “ Bali,” (or “ Baalim” ?—planets, θεοί, Uph. Buddh. p. 112, seg.; Mahawanso, pp. 230, 231, ed. Turn.). He was WH “ Thammuz,” or Thamuz, dur- ing the winter solstice, not at Byblus only, but even at the gate of the Temple of Jerusalem (Ezek. viii. 14); and fHI7T75, +“ Hadad-Rimmon,” at Damascus (according to Hitzig. Com. in Jes. 17, 8).—In Phe- nicia he was (Sanchon. ed. Orell. p. 34) “A8wéos (“‘ the sm smonly one” ?) βασιλεὺς θεῶν (Macrob. Sat. i. 23— “ Solem intelligentes”) or ‘378 “ Adoni,” “ my lord” ! —He was adored as Κίῤῥις (comp. the Persian ,,~ ) priest of “On” (orwem or orwimn, “the light”), Ἡλιούπολις, etc. (Gen. xli. 45). And also the ancient Egyptian ATeR “ gods” (Insc. Roset. 1. vii. viii. ed. Uhlem.), with the zend ATAR, “ fire,” called in Yacna, i. Xxxi., “ Ahurao . Mazdao . puthro,” “son of Hormuzd”; and elsewhere, “ Aokhto. namano . Yazato,” called by name, “ Yazata” (or Ized). 80 or “Ades at Golgos and Amathus; as ᾿Ηέλιος in his” own island, the gem of the deep, φανερὰ ‘Podos (Pind. Ol. vii.); as 90,0 “ Kadusch,” or No} “In”; in his magnificent halls at Baalbek, in Syria, which, Abul-feda (Tab. Syr. p. 103, ed. Koehl.) says,— — ἴων prc ae ead la oe ew Sl auld! Jy “ The Sabeans* declare to be the finest temple they have, and in great honour among them.” He was worshipped as HURVE or MITHRA among the fertile hills of Ariyana-vaéja; and on the sunny plains of India, as AGNI, SURYA, DIVAS-PATI, DIU-S. * vi Diom eshi rajas Prit’hu aha mimano aktub’hi:| pashyan janmani Surya! || Sapta twa harito rat’he vahanti deva Surya| Shochiskesham Vichak’shana!| | Udvayam tamasaspari jyotishpashyanta uttaram | Devan Devatra Suryam aganma jyotiruttamam. ||” “© Prit’hu! thou traversest, one and alone (i- eshi), thine «ethereal sphere DIAUS; measuring days and nights; thou, O Surya! who seest all creatures upon earth !— “Thy seven horses draw thee in thy chariot, O divine, bright-haired, light-imparting Surya! * ML cyl. ope ealicll,—lgisl yall (Coran. Sur. li. 62), an. id. 9, “ὦ ( F \ Μ : , 4 "Ovpavod θέαν ἀπατούμενοι καὶ ὄψει μόνῃ πεπιστευκότες, τῶν ἀστέρων τὰς κινήσεις ἐπιθεώμενοι, ἐθαύμασάν τε ἐξε- θείασαν, θεοὺς ἐκ τοῦ θεῖν ὀνομάσαντες τοὺς ἀστέρας" καὶ προσεκύνησαν “Ἥλιον ὡς ᾿Ινδοὶ, καὶ Σ᾽ ἐλήνην, ὡς Φρύγες" «tr. And thus, being “alienated from the life of God,” and dandynxéres—“ usvenans yaurthanai,” as Ulphilas reads it,—that is, “‘ having reached a state of despair,” “they have given themselves over unto all uncleanness.” For truly, as Seberianus says (Ho- mil, x. on Baptism), ἢ κ΄ siupiiny Ghutip ΕἾ, wn_uteg hsny, ἔκ ἧς Sager Sulghun unushy Xutugkyny qupuphg fps fuuts gb dias & Snqeny npp qiak as Xuwiinus£% + “ There is neither life for the body without breath, nor rest for the soul (or spirit) with- out the knowledge of her Creator. For the soul of those men is dead, who know not God.” So that in Plato’s words—eis “Ἤλιον ἀποβλέποντες, νύκτα ἐν μεσεμ- βρίᾳ ἐπάγονται, “while looking at the mid-day sun, those people are still in the shadow of death.” How full of pity ought we to be for them! and how thankful ought we to be to Him, “whom to know is eternal life,” that ‘‘He hath called us out of such dark- ness into His marvellous light!” That He hath be- gotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Curist from the dead,—to an inheritance in- corruptible, and undefiled; and that fadeth not away, reserved—higher than either Div or Olympus—in Heaven for us, “who are kept by the power of Gon, through faith unto salvation”! Even now, “ though we see Him not, yet believing,’ our walk through life is to be that of children of “Gop, who is light”; the bright “ path of the just,” which is, we know, to “shine more and more, unto our perfect day.” Then “we shall see Him as He is; and we shall be satis- fied, when we awake with His likeness.” For He is “the Fountain of Life,” and “in His light alone we shall see light.” Such is our hope. We can, there- fore, and with more confidence than Anaxagoras (Diog. 1. ii. 3, ii. ed. Hueb.), also look up to Heaven, where “ Christ, who is our life,” sitteth on the right hand of God; and, with him, say: “ἐμοὶ καὶ σφόδρα μέλει τῆς πατρίδος," δειξὰς τὸν ᾿Ουρανόν." ‘ The twin-roots, DIV, DIU, DIAU-8S, and DIU-8, which imply ‘‘ Heaven and brilliancy,” while spreading westward, still continued unaltered in quantity and in accent. For DIV, DIAU-S, or DIU-S are not words in which “ vowels go for nothing, and consonants for very little” ;—but they are terms which, like “ pater,” ‘“‘mater,” “‘frater,” and the like, outlive generations and languages, unhurt. We find, therefore, that, as both DIV and DIU-8 “ corripiebant penultimam,” three thousand years ago, this has remained as short as it was at that time; and that, of course, the tone has continued, as in those days, on the last syllable (except ace. 5. Divam—A/a). DIU-S in Sanserit was pronounced “DyUS”; and—ere Sanscrit grammar was modelled by Brahmanical skill—it was, perhaps, declined something like the Oscan (Iovs or Avs) gen. “ Tuveis” (diu-vas); dat. “ Diuvei,” διουζει, “ Diovi” (diu-vi) voc. Ιου, Ιου Πατεῤὶ (diu, diu-piter) in the Iguvinian Tables, ii. 2, v. 4, iv. 29, etc. (Mommsen, Unterit. Dial. pp. 129, 148, 170, ete. Grotefend, Rud. L. Umbr. viii. 17, vii. 30, iv. 7, 12, i. 10, ete.. Lanzi, Saggio di L. Etr. p. 309, etc.)—From DIU-S. came probably the Latin DEUS; the Dorie ΣΔΕΥ͂Σ (Aleei fr. 3, ed. G.) and Zeés ; the Lacedzemonian Σιός (Thucydid. v. 77, περὶ δέ τῶ Σιῶ ovparos—and. σεῖος ἀνήρ, etc. Arist. Eth. vii. 2); the Holic 4ETS, ΖΕΥΣ (gen. Adds, dat. Au, acc. Δία) or Θιός (Salmas. Not. in Epict. p. 37; Scheid. in v. Len. et. Gr. p. 917); the Attic (like οὐθεῖς, οὐθὲν for οὐδ εἷς, οὐδ ἕν, δυθμὰς for δυσμὰς, etc.) ΘΕΥΣ (Callim. Cal. Cer. 58— γείνατο δ᾽ ἃ θεῦς, and 129—rorl τὰν θεῦν---) and ΘΕΟΣ. We find accordingly that, both DEUS and ΘΕΟΣ are in some cases considered as one syllable, like ΖΕΥΣ and Div-s. L. g., Θεῦς as above, Θεός, Or. 393; Θεοί, Il. i. 18, Θεῶν, Θεοῖς, Theogn. 173, and Θεούς, 1100, ete.—and, in Horace (Sat. ii. 3, 284), “ Diis etenim facile est,” etc. And as to the pronunciation, no one can hear the dentals t, t’h, d, and d’h, in San- scrit, from the lips of an educated Brahman, without feeling that “Diu-s,” “ Ζεύς, “ Deus,” ‘ Θεῦς, and “‘ Θεός, may be so easily interchanged, as to become mere proyincialisms of the same identical word. And not only does the pronunciation of the dentals t, t’h, d, or d’h, vary, or even dwindle into a sibilant, in Indo- 90 germanic languages, (as e.g., ‘‘dann” for “then,” “door” and “ durch,” “through,” ete.,) but we find it the case also among the sterner idioms of the Shemites. .g., the Arabic JU! “ emthal,” becomes pa. ἐς meseller,” in Turkish ; oll “ eththani,” in Yemen, becomes “ ettani” in Syria, and “essani” in other districts. For these dentals are, from East to West, another ‘ Sibboleth,” which many do not pass. πρὶ The Sanscrit DIU-S (mase.), Agni, or, “the Sun,” and ( fem.) “radiating light,” in connection with the allied roots, DIU, DIAU-8, and DIv, “ Sky,” or ( Heaven,” is, then, the probable etymon of DEUS = ΘΕΟΣ. The Sun was adored because he gave light to Heaven, and life to the Earth; and Heaven was in turn worshipped as abode of the Sun. But the object of adoration. in both was “ Ligut,” as inseparable from the heat of “ Lirr” (Yacna, i. xxxvii.). This induced Bryant to propose Ὁ δ ’Ouvp-aw, “ fountain of light and heat,” as the origin of ’Ovpavdés. For Heaven as “ Heaven” was not worshipped at night: the moon and the stars were at that time the sole objects of adoration; and “ Night” (“— quod nocet, nox.” Τὶ Varro. vi. 6, ed. Miill.), when deified, was rather propitiated than worshipped,—“ veneranda nox,”—as being the absence of the “light and life” of day, from the “bright” expanse of Heaven above. Hence, it often happens that, among heathen nations, “the Sun” and ‘ Heaven”—“ hoc sublime candens,” —are identified in worship; one DIU-S (m.), as the Wan ny ees “se ἐπ ‘ generator of DIU-S (f.), “ light and life,”* the other DIAU-S (f.), or DIV (f.), as the receiver and pro- pagator of Licut, throughout the lower and neuter atmosphere, DIU. We have here the reason for which Ζεύς = DIU-S is always in the singular. One Ζεύς, one Drv-s, “ one HeEAvEN and Sun” ;—dvadéperar δὲ ἡ μονὰς eis ᾿Απόλλωνα, τουτέστιν, eis Tov ἑνὰ “Hrdsov—és ᾿Απόλλων λέγεται διὰ τὸ ἄπωθεν εἶναι τῶν πολλῶν καὶ Ῥωμαίοι δὲ αὐτὸν ““ Foren” (ἤτοι ““ μονον" λέγουσι) Joh. Lydius (de Μ. p. 42)--- “Sox” vel quod ita Sabini, vel “ solus” ita lucet, ut ex eo deo “dies” sit.f Τὶ Varro (v.68). The Sun, then, was adored as ?S—‘ πρόμος “Adsos”— ἄναξ κατ᾽ ἐξο- χήν" (and not ἄναξ from ‘Avaxaios, for having slain the “? Anakim,” as Dickinson thought ; Delphi Phen. p. 21, seq.) —as N23, ἥρως ;—in the Vedas as “Surya:”— Shura: and NARA: (comp. “ Nero,” dvdpetos— Νέρων 6 ἱσχύρος τῇ Σαβίνων φωνῇ," J. Lyd. p. 207, n.)—as “ dux et princeps et moderator luminum reliquorum” (Somn. Scip. 4)—idam shreshtam jyotisham Rig.-V. Asht. i. * Comp. “ Jubar”=*“ Lucifer,” with Sansc. diu or ju-b’hara, bara, or vara? 7 Called, for that reason, in Sanscrit, “ divakara:,” “maker of the day.” “Αμέρα---παῖς “Αλίου, ---ὁ γενέθλιος ἀκτίνων πατήρ, Pind.—“ Sollum Osce totum et solidum significat”;—or, “ usil,” “sol” (αὐσήλ, aurora) often found on Etruscan mirrors, with an image of the Sun (Mommsen Unt. Dial. pp. 297, 349). ee ee eee ee Se ee et a ie Leta ΡΥ i) ie eel μὰ Oe < »- hg 92 Adh. B. varg. i., “The first and best” (5s) of lumi- naries ;—as ‘ mens mundi” and “ cor celi” (Somn. Se. 3). “ Atma jagatastast’hushash-cha.” ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσ- μου καὶ τοῦ στερεώματος. Rig.-V. Asht.i. Adh. 8, varg. 7,i. nam, “ Sol est in AXthere quod in animali cor” (Macrob. Somn. Scip. c. xx.); and thus as. the “ centre,” the “ Light and the Life” of the Universe, as “ God”—Onr Gop—* Jia μὲν τὸν “Ἥλιον ἐνόμιζον εἐἶναι".--“ Ἥλιος γὰρ Ζεὺς κατὰ τὸν Φερεκύδην."---(ὅ. Lyd. pp- 48, 150.) Even §. Ephrem spiritualises this “ Unity” in e “Sun,” when he says (Serm. adv. Scr. lxxiii.)— _ = {Zasoston «1:90 Jas? Jolo tetas? {Ilo jo «στο bbl Yoshsd2 .001 ps Οσὶ 0 +. }s2007 ΟΟἹ .a2;2—. pw JAXZo «οσι ἸΔὰΖ» po» 001 ἴω τν +2080 —amjo . . σιῶν) So Jetas “ Behold the symbols in the Sun of the Fatuer; of the Sov, in the light, and of the Hory Guosr in the heat thereof! Although He is One, yet He shows forth the Trinity. —QOne is many; One is three ; and Three One.—The Sun is parted from his rays; they are distinct and yet equal and the same,” etc. That was the mono- theism, from which arose all the gods of heathendom; for, ‘“‘ quod omnes peene deos dumtaxat qui sub celo sunt, ad Solem referunt non vana superstitio; sed ratio divina commendat;—ita diverse virtutis Solis nomina Diis dederunt: unde & τὸ πᾶν sapientum principes prodiderunt.”—( Macrob. Sat. i. ο. 17.) The Sun, then, and Heaven (Agni and Indra), were the first objects towards which the heathens raised their eyes, and lifted up their hands in worship. Aristotle (de CGeelo, ii. 1, 3) tells us that, τὸν δ᾽ οὐρανὸν καὶ τὸν ἄνω τόπον οἱ μὲν ἀρχαῖοι τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπένειμαν ὡς ὄντα μόνον ἀθάνατον. “The ancients awarded to the gods, Heaven and the High place above; as itself being alone immortal,” etc.; and ibid. i. 3, πάντες yap ἄνθρωποι περὶ θεῶν ἔχουσιν ὑπόληψιν, Kal πάντες τὸν ἀνωτάτω τῷ θεῷ τόπον ἀποδιδόασι, καὶ βάρβαροι, καὶ Ἕλληνες, ὅσοι περ εἶναι νομίζουσι, θεούς, x.7.r. “ All men have some kind of notion about gods; and they all have awarded to the Deity the highest place above; whether Barbarians or Greeks, as many as believe in the existence of gods.” But the worship of “ Heaven?” as abode of the Deity, is especially remarkable in China, as we shall see presently. That worship was, as we read in the Le-ke (c. ix.) “ K’hing-chih-che yay,” “ an act of the highest possible veneration.” We find it the case throughout, in the Shoo-king, in the Le-ke, and in the other works of Confucius. For as to the “ mate- rial” Heaven, the Chinese only thought “ T’heen-Tih shang-keaou,” ‘ that Heaven and the Earth were of a very remote antiquity.” For, here, “keaou” cannot be “eternal,” as one commentator explains it; for Lao-Tsze says expressly (see above, p. 19), that “wo-ming Taou,” ‘ the ineffable Taou,” “the Taou that cannot be named,” is the origin of Heaven and Earth. And at c. xxiii., moreover, he seems to imply that T’heen-Tih puh neng keaou—“ Heaven and Earth cannot last long.” 94 Whether in China, then, in Greece, or in India, — “bright Heaven,” DIV or DIAU-S, was deified and worshipped— 1) as abode of the Sun, Le-ke (c. ix. x. xii. xviil. xix.) ‘‘Keaou-che tse ta paou T’heen eul choo Jih,” “ The sacrifice performed in the open country, is a preat acknowledgment to Heaven, and the principal object in it is the Sun”: στρέφοντα κύκλον ᾿Ηλίου πᾶς προσκυνξι (Soph. fr. 90, 2) τόν πανόπτην κύκλον Ἡλίου καλῶ, (Prom. v. 91,) ete. : 2) as abode of the planets (θεοί, ἀπὸ τοῦ θέειν, Plato Cratyl.),— μακάρεσσι θεοῖς ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεὶ, (Hes. Theog. 128,)—and soon became— 3 3) personified ; (as Hes. Th. 46, and Orph. H. iv.,) “ Οὐρανὲ παγγενέτωρ, κόσμου μέρος αἰὲν ἀτειρὲς, πρεσβυγέ- ven’ ἀρχὴ πάντων" .--- πανυπέρτατε δαίμον, κλῦθί pev,”— and in the Vedas, as father of Ushas or Aurora, ete. We saw above, that Φανής, Φαεθών, “Ἥλιος, and Ζεύς, Deus, are one (Ζεύς, Ἥλιος ἠδέ Σελήνη, Orph. fr. vi.). And since ‘‘ Heaven” (DIU or DIAU-S, Διός ὑψιμέλαθρον ἔχων κράτος, Orph. H. v.), ὁ. ¢., “the light of Heaven above,” was, practically, identified in worship, with DIU-S the Sun and father of that light, we must expect to find also that ’Ovpavds and Ζεύς are one and the same. ‘ Mundum,” says Pliny (Nat. H. lib. ii. 1), “ οὐ hoc, quod nomine alio ‘ Celum’ ap- pellare libuit, cujus circumflexu teguntur cuncta, numen esse credi par est, eternum, immensum, ne- que genitum, neque interiturum unquam.” We find, 95 accordingly, that Euripides, as quoted by Hecateus (Huseb. Prep. Ev. p. 681, A. ed. Col.) says— ‘ Opds, φησὶ, τὸν ὑψοῦ, τόνδ᾽ ἄπειρον ᾿Αιθέρα, Καὶ γῆν πέριξ ἔχονθ᾽ ὑγραῖς ἐν ἀγκάλαις ; Τοῦτον νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ᾽ ἥγου Θ εόν. And Aischylus (ibid. ibid.)— Ζεύς ἐστιν αἰθήρ, Ζεὺς δὲ γῆ, Ζεὺς δ᾽ οὐρανός. And Orpheus (fr. νἱ.}-- Ζεὺς πυθμὴν γαίης τε καὶ ᾿Ουρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος, etc. εἷς θεός ἐν πάντεσσι, τί σοι δίχα ταῦτ᾽ ἀγορεύω ;—(fr. iv. ) And Ennius (Epich. 512,ed.G.)— ἐς Tstic est is Juppiter, quem dico, quem Greeci vocant ” "Aépa And Philemon (fr. i. ed. Cler. )}— “ --οὗτος εἰμ᾽ ἐγὼ ᾿Αήρ, ὅν ἄν τις ὀνομάσειε καὶ Δία." And Archilochus (fr. 17, ed. G.)— Ὦ Zed, πάτερ Zed, σὸν μὲν ᾿Ουρανοῦ kpatos!” etc. Thus, besides the Greek idea that “6 κόσμος ψυχὴν ἔχει THY συνέχουσαν αὐτόν. καὶ αὕτη καλεῖται ζεύς --- ὡς αἰτία οὖσα τοῖς ζῶσι τοῦ ζῆν ---Παρά τισι δὲ καὶ δεὺς λέγεται ἀπὸ τοῦ δεύειν τὴν γήν"---κιτ᾿λ. (Phurn. N. 1). p- 141, ed. Gale), we may also mention other appro- priate (but not probable) etymologies for Ζεὺς; namely, the Syriac Yas} “Zivo” (7.¢., DIV?), “brightness, light,” (“‘ Oyar zivo,”) and the Egyptian xoeic (pron. Djois, or Djeus), which means “ Most-High” ; and with the article nxoeic, (or, abbreviated, noc, ) the word by which ΓΤ and Κύριος are generally translated in Holy Scripture. ΖΕΥ͂Σ, then, ὕψιστος,--“Ἡλιός τε καὶ Odpa- vos,—is πατήρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε---ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν ---“ pater divimque hominumque”; DIESPI- TER,* (Hor. Od. i. 84, 5) (not DIVAS-PATI: “ Lord of the Sky,” an epithet of Agni and of Indra; but) DIU-S-PITER, or DIAU-S-PITER, ‘ Sun,” or * brilli- ant-Heaven-Father”; or DIU-PITER, “ Air,” “ Sky,” or “ Heaven-Father”; JUPITER; ZET¥—DEUS = ΘΕΟΣ;,-- “hoe | Sublime candens quem vocant omnes JOVEM.” —(Ennius Thyest. 669, ed. Giles). In like manner, then, as ΖΕΥΣ, DIU-S, DIV, was * “Hoc idem ostendit antiquius Jovis nomen ; nam olim Drovis et Dresriter dictus, id est ‘ dies pater’ (‘ dies,’ ὦ. g., ‘ dius,’ Lanzi. Sagg. iii. 721), a quo ‘dei’ dicti qui inde, et ‘dius’ et ‘divos’; unde ‘ sub divo,’ ‘ Dius Fidius.’ Itaque inde ejus perfora- tum tectum ut ea videatur ‘ divom’ id est ‘ celum’; -- Δ 105 ‘ Dium Fidium’ dicebat ‘ Diovis filium,’ ut Greci Διόσκορον Castorem,” etc, (T. Varro. ν. 65, et ix. 75, ed. Mill.) “ Jovis diespiter appellatus, id est diei et lucis pater: idcireoque simili nomine Diiovis (or Diovis) dictus est et Lucretius, quod nos die et | luce quasi vita ipsa afficeret et juvaret.”—(Gell. v. 10; in Mommsen. Unt. D. p. 274). tn - x est, See) 5. 359) Si Mal ΟΣ gg ee ery 97 πατὴρ θεῶν ᾿Ολυμπίων (Choeph. 773)—so also from (Diu, Diu-s) DIV proceeds naturally the adjective DEVA-S, Lat. Divus, 7. ¢., one of DIV “ Heaven”— both “bright” and “ heavenly.” Accordingly, we find, δῖος (diu-s) “τὸν ἀπὸ Atds”—vidv ἐμὸν, Σαρπηδόνα δῖον, Ll. ό. 67, as Plato (Pheedr. sec. 72, ed. Bek.) says: ‘ot μὲν δὴ οὖν Διὸς Δίιόν τινα εἶναι ζητοῦσι τὴν. ψυχὴν τὸν ὑφ᾽ αὑτῶν épopevov’”— θεῖος a θεός, e.g. Zeno ( Diog. Laert. vil. 119), ‘ θείους (ἀνθρώπους) τε εἶναι" ἔχειν γὰρ ἐν éav- τοῖς οἱονεὶ θεόν". --σεῖος ἃ σιός, etc., and thus only, “ divus” a “ déo,” “a god.” DEVA-S, we see, can hardly be the root of DEUS and ΘΕΟΣ, for the wear and tear of three thousand years would not reduce the long é of Déva-s (pro- nounced like ay in “day,” “nay”) to the short ὅ, ε, in Déus, and Θεός. For, this “ epirov” (and not ora) is the Greek substitute for the Sanscrit semi-vowel — “y” or “7” short; since (unlike c-wra), it coalesces with the following vowel into one syllable, as in Ζεύς, Ζεύς = Dyus, Diu-s; and also in Θεός, as Porson (not. ad Orest. 393) shows abundantly. Moreover, the “ v” ( Vit) of déva-s would not disappear without good reason for it. (Comp. e.g. “ dwa,” (diia) dtio, inst. pl. dwab’- hi-s, Lat. ““ diabus,” with dyu-s, (diu-s) déus, Θεός, acc. 5. (of diau-s) diam, diém; inst. pl. (of dyu) diub’hi-s, diibus ; gen. pl. (of div) divam, défim, θεῶν.) In the nom. pl. Déeva-s makes Déva-s, Lat. Divi, οἱ θεοί. acc. sing. Déevam, Lat. Divum, etc., and it is applied, like θεοί, to all created gods; who are the offspring of Diy, Drv-s, “ Pita devanam,” “the Father of the gods.” 8 : 98 We have already quoted the Orphic hymns to that effect. Inthe Rig.-V.,i., Adh. 2, iv. 18, we read — “Namo mahadb’hyo namo arb’hakeb’hyo namo juvab’- hyo namo ashineb’hya: |} Yajyama devan jadi shaknavama ma jyayasa: shansa- ma vrik’shi deva:||” “ Homage to the great gods, homage to the lesser gods, homage to the younger gods, (at last!) also to the older ones! We worship the gods as well as we can; let me not omit to praise the oldest gods as well.” They are said, in varg. iv. 2, to be, Déva Di- visprisha—“ divi Dium tangentes” ; explained in the commentary to mean, as applicable to the two As- wins, Diulokanivasinau, “ dwelling in the world of DIU-S.” Déva-s, it is true, is applied to Vrras, who _ is a secondary creator, and “ calls, or not, this world into life’ at pleasure (in Laws of Manu, v. 52). But at sl. 33, we find that this creator VrraJ, although so powerful, is nevertheless an offspring of * tapastaptwasrijat yantu sa swayam purusho VIRAT,” the original Viraj, or Brahma, after he had performed austerities for that purpose. In the Rig.-V., also, Asht. i. Adh. 1, varg. 23, 7, etc., and in the Vedas in general, déva-s is repeatedly said of Aen; but it stands there as an adjective; and the commentary explains it to mean, “ dyotamana,” “ brilliant”; and “divine.” We have also further proof, elsewhere, that Déva-s “ divus,” “a god,” cannot be taken in the same acceptation as Déus ὁ Θεός, Gop; 6. 4.. in the 99 Bhagavad-gita, x. 23, Bhagavan, Almum Numen, says— _ * Na me vidu: surana: prab’havanna maharshaya: | Ahamadirhi Devanam maharshinan-cha sarvasha:||” “ Neither do the hosts of gods, nor yet the oldest sages, know from whence Iam. I am the origin of the gods, and of the great sages too!” ete. DEVA-S, then, like Divi and θεοί, are creatures, “ Θεοῦ παῖδες, the offspring of DIV, or DIU-S. But although heaven-born, those Déva-s, divi or θεοί, Were, we know, bad enough: and, for that rea- son, they were alternately worshipped or dreaded, coaxed or averted, by an ignorant and priest-ridden multitude. In the Zend-Avesta, for instance, “Ἢ Daé- vas,” ‘“ déva-s,” “ divus,” always means an “ evil spirit,” hostile to Hormuzd; as, 6. g., “‘ Daevojata,” “struck or killed by the Daévas”; and (Yagna, Invoc. iii.) Fravarane . mazdayagno . Zarathustris . vi- daevo . Ahuratkaeso . etc.: “ I utter with respect the mazdayacgna of Zarathustr, the enemy of the Daévas, the follower of Ahura’s behests, etc.” The same word became, in Persian, yo, “ Div,” with a long 7, which eG οὐ says, ash cables ἡ .c¥ is “a species of devils.” While the long @ of déva-s, re-appears in the diphthong “4,” “év,” or “yév” (comp. Lith. “ diewas,” and Lett. “ deewas”), of the Armenian g4, mév,” or “ TyHv,” gen. gfrf, “ τίνι, etc. “an evil genius or spirit,” which in ancient Armenian authors is frequently applied to false gods; 6. g. 100 (Moses Chor. lib. i. ο. viil.), Ugéege & tpktyhe, wnwbiph ἦν phot bw foupSh desu & puplug wunXupp + ‘Those chiefs among the gods were both terrible and notorious, and the promoters of many advantages to the world”; and c. ix., where the historian relates the deeds of Haic, who by his valour ruled over ὅσων $puhuybgt afegququrhg, ‘all the giants and the gods.” In the New Testa- ment, “74” is used for “devil”; 6. g., 1 Cor. x. 20, “ra ἔθνη, bug A n's iy “πη ΕἾ, : δαιμονίοις θύει, καὶ οὐ Θεῷ, etc. Thence comes the old Icelandic ΤΙΕῚ or Tivi, “ἃ god,” pl. Tivar, e.g., “ rikir tivar,” “‘ powerful gods” (Thrm. qv. i.; Vegt. qv. 43, etc.), and the modern Icelandic “ dif-il,” a ‘ dev-il”; and the acceptation of δαίμων (which in Greek is good and bad), chiefly in a bad sense in Latin, and always so in its cognate dialects. “Ἐν τοσούτῳ δὴ πολέμῳ καὶ στάσει καὶ διαφωνίᾳ," Says Max. Tyrius (λόγ. ά. p. 8) ἕνα ἴδοις ἄν ἐν πάσῃ γῇ ὁμόφωνον νόμον καὶ λόγον, ὅτε ΘΕΟΣ ΕΙΣ πάντων βασι- λεὺς καὶ πατὴρ, καὶ θεοὶ πολλοὶ, Θεοῦ παῖδες συνάρχοντες Θεῷ. Ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Ἕλλην λέγει καὶ 6 βάρβαρος λέγει." We find accordingly, that in like manner as Ζεύς was “efs,” so also was his prototype (Div) or DIU, ‘‘ HEAVEN,” personified, even in Vaidic times, under the name of Indra,*— * Kither from “ idi” “to govern”; or from “ indi,” “ raining.” 101 **___ PATIR-DIVO, ya eka idb’huratit’hirjananam | Sa purvyo — EKA IT.” “the Lord of Heaven, who atone is (the guest worshipped among men. He is of old—He 1s onz.” (Sama-V. i. 4, 2, 4, 3). It was Indra, who — “ —— dirgaya chak’shasa a Suryan rohayad Divi|” “in order to make all things for ever visible” (Adi- tyan Diuloke st’hapitavan), raised (or placed) the Sun, DIU-S, in “ Heaven”; that is “in the world of DIU”; (“within himself” Rig.-V. i. 1; xiii. 8). Then, the Sun, DIU-S, the restless Agni — *Murd’ha DIVO, nabir AGNI: prit’hivya at’hab’havad arati rodasyo: |” became the “head” of Heaven (DIU-S masc. of DIU neut. as “ Head and Author of life”), the navel of the earth (“ ὀμφαλὸς ἐριβρόμου χθονός, at Delphi, Pind.), that gives to it strength and energy—* d«dpas”— ἐς ὑπερίων""-““ κόσμου τὸν ἐναρμόνιον δρόμον ἕλκων" (Orph. H. νἱῖ]. ; Rig.-V. i. 4; xxv. 2), for — ΣΙ Suparno antarik’shan yak’hyadgab’hiravepa Asura: Sunit’ha: |” “the deep-quivering, life-giving, true Suparna (‘ with healing wings’—wholesome rays) shines in the whole Heaven” (Rig.-V. i. 3; vil. 7),—DIVAS-chid rocha- nad ad@’hi—‘ from even beyond the bright sphere above,” where he—yevérwp jods”—dwells with his daughter Ushas (Rig.-V. i. 4; vi. 1). The Sun, as “ head of Heaven,” and “ prat’hamo 4 102 mritanam”——“‘ first among the immortals” (Rig.-V. 1. 2; xiii. 2), was worshipped FIRST ;— “hvayamy AGNIM PRAT’HAMAN, swastaye —hvayami devan Savitaram, utaye | |” “"Hy1e δέσποτα, καὶ πῦρ iepdv!” “ αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν οὐ λήξω, ἑκηβόλον ᾿Απόλλωνα ὑμνέων, ἀργυρότοξον (Hom. H. Ap. 177). ee Tov πάντων θεῶν θεὸν πρόμον “AdXtov”—* ὀλβιοδῶτα᾽" “ σὸν θεόν ποιούμενος ἀρωγόν"" (Soph. Orph. Rig.- Was Os Nicks ond ἃ 2 ΩΝ, 8). For the Sun, Agni, DIU-S “DIVAS-PATI:” or “ Patir- divas,’ “ Lord of Heaven” or of “the day,” is “ jyotishkrit,” “ creator of light” (Rig.-V. i. 4; vil. 4); “diva-kara:” “ maker of the day” (or “ of Hea- ven”—* οὐράνιον φῶς, Orph.; Kum. Samb’h. i. 12), and — ““ pratyan devanam visha: pratyanudeshi manushan | pratyan vishwan swardrishe, | |” “rises in presence of all the gods; in presence of men; in sight of the whole Heaven” (ibid. 5). Hence— “"Evdey ἐπωνυμίαν σε βροτοὶ κλήζουσιν "ANAKTA,” he is called “ Prince” (Orph. Η. xxxiv.); “ vispatim,” “Lord of men” (Rig.-V.i. 1; xxii. 2); and “ vishwa- charshanim,” “ worshipped by all” (Rig.-V. 1. 2; xxiii. 9), who are all “ his offspring.” For — “twam AGNE pramatistwam PITASI nastwam vayas- krittava jamayo vayam | ” 103 * Q Agni! thou art favourable to us. Thou art our Father! thou givest us life, and we are thy kins- men !” 7 Thus sang of old, the Vaidic priests of Sind, the beloved land of Indu, that drinks “ prishtin Divas,” the refreshing showers of Heaven; and rejoices ever- more in the exuberant gifts of AGNI, “ Pati prit’hivya,” “the Lorp,” who “vansate rayim,” “crowns His land with His choicest blessings” (Sama-V. ii. 3, 1, 4,2; andi. 1, 3, 7, and 2). There InprA, “mahan INDRA parashcha”— Lord great and supreme (Rig.-V. i. 1, xv. 5), “sahasran yasya rataya uta va santi b’huyasi: | ” “ whose bounties are in thousands, and even more” (Rig.-V. i. 1; xxi. 8). ** ya ekashcharshaninam vasunamirajyati |”’ “who alone rules over mankind and their wealth” (Rig.-V. i. 1; xiii. 9). was addressed as — “INDRA raye,” “Opulent Indra!” “ asaditte vib’hu prab’hu,” “whose own are riches in abundance, enough and to spare” (Rig.-V. i. 1; xvii. 4-7). “twamasya pare rajaso vyomana: swab’hutyoja avase @hrishanmana: | chakrishe b’humim pratimanamojaso s pa: swa: pa- rib’hureshya Divam. ||” “Firm in thy counsels, O Indra! thou abidest in thine own strength, even beyond that bright expanse 104 of Heaven; thou hast made the earth; thou hast been the type of vigour; and thou hast encom- passed the sky, and the firmament, even unto the Heavens.” “twam b’huva: pratimanam prit’hivya rishwavirasya brihata: patirb’hu: | vishwamapra antarik’sham mahitwa satyamadd’ha na- kiranyastwavan. | |” ‘“‘ Thou art the image of the wide earth, and Lord of the boundless realms above; thou fillest the whole Heaven with thy majesty; indeed there is none other like unto thee!” (Rig.-V. i. 4; xiv. 12, 18. δ ; : * mad’hu DIAUR astu na: PITA!” ‘“‘ May our Father, Heaven, be favourable (sweet) to us!” (Rig.-V. i. 6; xvii. 7.) “INDRA kratunna ab’hara PITA putreb’hyo yat’ha.” | “Ὁ Indra! bring us wisdom, as a father to his chil- dren!” (Sama-V. i. 3, 1, 7); for— “ vasyam INDRASI me pituruta b’hraturab’hunjata : |’? ; ‘Thou art dearer to me, O Indra! than either father or brother, who both have abandoned me!” (Sama- V.1. 3, 2, 5,10); and — : ** shradd’ha hi te, Maghavan, parye DIVI!” “ Faith in thee, O thou rich in blessings! exalts us to Heaven!” (ibid. i. 2, 3, 4, 8.) “pra sam RAJAN charshaninam INDRAWN stota nav- yan girb’hi: | Naran nrishaham manhishtam!” 105 “Q praise anew the king of mankind with your songs; praise him, the hero, the conqueror, the ever- bountiful Indra!” (Sama-V. i. 2; i. 4,10); for— **INDRO vishwasya rajati.” “ Indra meee over all!” (Sama-V. i. 5, 2, 2, 10.) He is — * PITA Devanan, janita sudak’shyo, vishtambo DIVO, @haruna: prit’hivya: |” “The father and noble progenitor of the gods, the pillar of Heaven, and support of the earth” (Sama-V ii. 1, 1, 10,2). He is “Swa:-pati:” the Lord of Hea- ven, and like the Sun also, “ Prit’hu: patir-Divas »— “ Prit’hu, Lord of the Sky” or “of the Day” (Sama- VY. i. 5, 1, 3)—“yo devasya shavasa prarina asu”— “who brings forth life with power divine” (Sama-V. i. 5, 2, 3,10). But since “‘ Heaven,” as “ Father,” derives his life- giving energy from the Sun, who is “asura,” ‘ pos- sessing life,” and “Indreva,” “like Indra” (Sama-V. 1, 2, 3, 6, etc.)—the Sun is called “ Pitus-Pita,” “‘ Father’s Father” (in Sama-V. ii. 6, 2,7, 2). For the “light and life” of “the Sun” is inseparable from “ Heaven”; since — “srayanta iva SURYAN vishwed INDRA-sya b’hak’- shata | vasuni jato janimanyojasa prati b’hagan na did’- hima: | | ” ‘“‘ In looking up to the Sun for health, you receive every gift from Indra; from whom we obtain abun- 106 dant riches as our birthright” (Sama-V. i. 3, 2, 3, 5). Thus, we often find these two principal and in- separable deities—“ Heaven” and the “Sun,” “IN- DRA” and “AGNI”—worshipped together as one, “ INDRAGNI,” as, 6. g. (Sama-V. ii. 1, 3, 7—3, 1, 9; and ii. 2, 1, 9, etc. )— “INDRE AGNA namo brihatsuvriktimerayamahe | @hiya d’hena avasyava: ||’ “We extol, worship, and praise Indra and Agni, the two together; looking for their help, in our devotion” (Sama-V. ii. 2, 1, 9); yea— “ta huve YAYOR idam papne vishwam pura kritam | INDRAGNI na mard’hata: ||” “T call upon the two celebrated ones, by whom all this world was made of old; Indra and Agni, you two in one, do not forsake me!” (Sama-V. ii. 2, 2, 8), ete. The above examples, which might be multiplied abundantly, from the same ancient source, show that ‘“ Heaven,” as Parent of men, was inseparable in worship from the fountain of his own “ light and life,” the Sun; and that as in India, so also in Greece, “ Ζεύς (Οὐρανός), and (Ζεύς) “Ἥλιος, his head, were ONE,—“ Δεσπότης κόσμου, and “ ZOHS ΦΩΣ." In like manner, also, as we have seen that in all probability we may bring back DN to its simplest primitive bs, so also, if there be any priority in the 107 monosyllables DIU, DIU-S, DIO, DIAU-S, or DIV, we would look upon DIU and DIV as identical, and as anterior to DIU-S or DIAU-s. DIU (neut.), the “bright expanse of Hzaven,” became DIU-S ( fem.), the “life-giving rays,’ which proceed from DIU-S (masc.), the Author and Parent of that life-giving light, AGNI, the Sun, (Ignis, “ dyévntos,”—* ἁγνὸς Θεός" Pind.); for, as Homer (Il. 6, 189) says — “rowOa δὲ πάντα δέδασται, ἕκαστος δ᾽ ἔμμορε τιμῆς" "ἢ But as those three cannot exist separate (since “ Fire,” “ Light,” “‘ Day,” and “ Heaven,” are all told in one word), and make together ONE bright and in- divisible whole—this ‘ fountain of life-giving light” -- ὟΝ MS, οὐρανός) was also expressed by the length- ened form (Dio,) “ DIAU-S,” which, like DIU-8, is both masculine and feminine, and means, when feminine, Day (“ Diss,” Ovid. M. ii. 25), “ the highest Sky,” “ Heaven,” and “Swarga,” or “ Paradise’; and is * See this treated at length by J. Lyd. de M. pp. 51, seq., and spiritualised by S. Ephrem, in Serm. adv. Ser. Lxxiii. t Comp. “ Dies” for “deus” or “dea,” in “ CurE pies”; Iguvin. Tab. iv. 4, which Lanzi (Sagg. Et. L. vol. iii. p. 721) reads, “Core Die,” for Proser- pine. But Grotefend (Rud. L. Umb. iii. pp. 17, 21) reads it ‘“ xouperves,” for “ Juno Curitis,” or “ Kuperias,” etc. 108 regularly declined in most of its cases in the Vedas. When masculine, however, it may be taken for “ the Sun,” as, perhaps, in this passage of the Sama-Veda (ii. 9, 18, 2) — | * Yajishtam twa yajamana — parijmanamiva DIAM, hotaram charshaninam, | ' Shochishkesham.” “We worship thee, most worthy of worship! (‘ Ya- jishta,? ‘ Yajata,? ‘ Yazata,’ ‘Yazd,’ ‘ Yazdan,’ bby) like the Sun, revolving (or like Heaven, surround- ing), “μάντιν ἐπιχθονίοις ἔξοχον᾽ (Pind.) ‘ χρυσοκόμαν ᾿Απόλλωνα, (Eurip.)—‘ ῬΙΤΌΒ- ΡΙΤΑΒΑΜ, the Father of Heaven, who is the Father of men.” We have thus endeavoured to bring back ΘΕΟΣ, DEUS, to its root DIU,-S, masc. fem. and neut., the “Sun,” and “ bright vault of Heaven above”— ‘HOC SUBLIME CANDENS”—for in the east, ‘‘ Heaven,” anon ‘“ candet,” is white; and the “ air” is ardent. And we have seen that Θεός meant, originally, not ‘a god,” as it does generally in Greek writers, but that long anterior to their time it was used to express the great and bright expanse of Heaven, which is ONE—od μόνον εἷς ἐστὶν οὐρανός, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδύνατον γε- νέσθαι mrelovs,—Which was thought ἀΐδιος ἄφθαρτος ὧν καὶ ἀγένητος, ““ eternal being, imperishable and un- created” —(for they knew Him not who says: “ Be- hold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered!” etc.)—and was worshipped at first—xai γὰρ τοῦτο τοὔνομα (οὐρα- vos) θείως ἔφθεγται παρὰ τῶν apyalov—as the “ first,” 109 or “ only God.” *—( Arist. de Celo, i. 9.) We have also seen that “ déva-s,” ‘“ divus,” is inferior to Diu-s, or Dju-piter, who was ὑψυμέδων or ὕψιστος --- “ ἕν κράτος, els δαίμων γένετο, μέγας ἀρχὸς ἁπάντων." —(Orph. fr. vi.) So that Drav-s, Heaven, or Dru-s, Ιου Πατηρ, Dsvu- PITER, Ζεύς, Duus, and Θεός, like Ex and Exonm, were adored together as inseparable, as head and body of the Great and Powerful ONE above. ‘We see, then, clearly, that the original worship of Θεός (Diu-s or Div), and that of the Divi, are in themselves different; and that, although mingled to- gether in practice by a degraded people, what applies to the former, will seldom suit the latter. For these were each only an energy or a property of “the Sun,” DIU-S, (who, as author of life and light, was, ἕν τό wav,)—singled out and personified by men who, Macrobius says, “ diversee virtutes Solis nomina diis dederunt” (Sat. i. xvii.). But “the Sun,” “ἡ μονὰς, ἄῤῥην καὶ yoviywrdrn”—from which they all emanated, was “εἷς Zeds”— οὕτω yap καὶ 6 “Anus,” says Archy- tas, ““ φερόμενος Sia TH ζωοφόρω κύκλω διανέμει τοῖς ἐπὶ yas πᾶσι καὶ γενέσιος καὶ τροφᾶς καὶ βιοτῶς τὰν ποθάκου- * Thus, ¢.g., we find that Tafri which in Tatar means the “ open Sky,” is the term also by which they express the “ Most-High God,” ‘“ Allah-ta’ala.” It is the term adopted in the Orenburg-Tatar version of the New Testament, for “* God.” 110 cay μοῖραν, οἷον εὐνομίαν, ----διὸ καὶ Νόμιος καὶ Νεμήϊος Ζεὺς καλέεται," --(Ερ᾿δ0. iv. p. 126, ed. Gil.)—for, as we read in the Vishnu Purana (ii. ix. 6, 7), “tadad’haranjagachchedan sadevasura manusham. |” “ This world, with all the gods, demi-gods, and men, is supported by the Sun.” Since, however, “ Ζεύς" could not be “ Οὐρανὸς παγγενέτωρ," “ ἐν στέρνοισιν ἔχων φύσεως ἄπλητον ἀνάγκην" (Orph. H. iv. 6), but for “ ξἕξωῆς φῶς, Ἥλιον, τὸν αὐτοφυῆ---κχρόνου πατέρα--- ἀθάνατον Ala—(Orph. H. viii.); we have fixed upon DIU-S, in particular, as the origin of “ DEUS” and “ΘΕΟΣ, because, as a masculine, it is the creative Power; “ Φῶς καὶ εὐθὺ καὶ μόνιμον, ἄῤῥεν τε καὶ δεξιόν," (J. Lyd. de M. pp. 42, 44).----ζωαρκέος, ὦ ἄνα, πηγῆς αὐτὸς ἔχων Kdnida—(Procel. It. in 5. 2). We do not think that either the relative position of Div-s, m., the Sun, and Diav-s, f, Heaven,* or the whole type of life expressed in DIU, masc., * In, Div-s and Diav-s, (and perhaps, in “ Dyavi,” “ Heaven and earth” §.-V. ii. 7, ὃ, 14, 1), we have the probable origin of the phallic worship and its rites, as they spread from east to west; from the Yin and Yang principles of Chinese physics, to the myth of Adonis and Venus. (“ Venus,” not from “ Be- noth,” in “ Succoth-Benoth,” 2 Kings xvii. 30, as Selden (de D. Syr. 1. ¢.) thinks, but from the Celtic ‘* Ben” or * Bean” (pron. “ Ven”), a “ woman.” 111 fem., and neut., are a mere coincidence. We believe, on the contrary, that although the distinction may not have been adhered to by the bulk of Vaidic worshippers, who— τὸ yap ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν εἰώθασι λέγειν Odpavov—év ᾧ καὶ τὸ θεῖον πᾶν ἰδρῦσταί φασι""--- (Arist. de Ceelo, i. 9, 8, 9), yet that this “two” or “THREE” in “ONE,” is a genuine relic of ancient Monotheism among men, who, having lost the know- ledge of “ the true God,” still endeavoured to wor- ship, as such, the One source of Light from which they received Life and all its blessings. DIU-S ac- counts at once for “ Devs” and “ Θεός" being mase. and fem.* It leads us back to Gen. i. 27; but only to forbid the mind to dwell on the mystery, with human thoughts. It explains how “ Heaven” is both “ father” and “ mother” (Sama-V. ii. 4, 2, 3, 2; and 3, 1, 16, 2, etce.); and how “Jupiter” is also both ‘* father” and “ mother” of the gods (Creuzer Symb. ili. 543), since — “ Ζεὺς ἄρσεν γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη " —(Orph. fr. vi.) It shows how VIRAJ, proceeded from BRAHMA (Manu * E.g., “ ducente deo,” Virg. Ain. ii. 632, “non dea” (says Macrob. Sat. iii. c. 8), ‘nam ed apud Calvum Acterianus affirmat legendum”: “ pollentem- que deum Venerem, non deam,” etc.; and Cic. de N.D, i. 28,— Adpodirov and ᾿Αφροδίτην,---τὼ Θεώ, 2%. 6., Περσε- φόνη καὶ 4ημήτηρ, etc. 112 | Sanh. i. 82), who (in the Kumara Samb’h. ii. 7) is addressed thus by the sages :-— “ Stripunsavatmab’hagau te b’hinnamurte: sisrik’shaya | prasutib’haja: sargasya taveva pitarau smritau. ||” “ Thy integral parts are male and female, when; wishing to create, thou dividest thy form. They are called the two authors of nature dividing itself to produce.” It also accounts for “ dies” being m. and f.; and for “the Sun” (“Hyws m., and ἕλη f.), being of both genders; 6. g., either generally mase., and very rarely fem., as in the Vedas; or fem., as in the ᾿ North; e.g., “ Kona Glens,” or “Glens bedia,” “the wife of the Brilliant ;’—“ ey-gléa,” ἄυγλη,---΄ déttur Mundilfsera, systar Mana,” “ the daughter of the re- volving Sphere, the sister of the Moon,” ete. (Snorra Edda, Skaldsk. pp. 126, 177; ed. Rask. Lex. Myth. Edd. p. 716, etc.)—or of com. gender, as in the She- mitic idioms. In Syriac, it is sometimes expressly fem., as 6. g.,in Lib. Adami, i. p. 222, where a reason is given for it. But, as Gesenius says (Thes. L. H. p. 49), in speaking of the etymology of 2%: “ Quis in tanta harum rerum obscuritate certam sententiam dixerit?” It would, therefore, only savour of conceit in us, if we were to do more than offer an opinion on the subject, together with our reasons for it, leaving our readers to judge for themselves; especially as, in some parti- culars, we are at variance with authorities from which it seems arrogant to differ. With St. Augustine : ταν: τὶ TS (de Trin. lib. i. ὁ. 2, 3), therefore, “" Non me pigebit sicubi heesito, queerere: nec pudebit, sicubi erro, dis- cere. Quisquis hee legit, ubi pariter certus est, per- get mecum: ubi pariter hesitat, querat mecum: ubi errorem ~— ae redeat ad me; ubi meum, revocet me.’ Yet, Stilt is difference of opinion on the subject even among those high authorities. For instance, Prof. Bopp (Comp. Gr. p. 4, 15) derives θεός from déva-s,” while at p. 134, he brings Ζεύς and “ Ju- piter” from Div. But he seems to us to make light of quantity; for he derives the short ὄ of θεός from the long @ of “ déva-s”; and, vice versd, the long 7 of * divo,” and “ dio,” from the short 7 of “ div.” Dr. Spiegel ( Avesta, ch.i. p. 6) says, that “ déva-s,” in Latin ‘‘ deus,’ comes from “div” or “dyu.” But, with Dr. Windischmann, he derives θεός from the root “d’ha.” This is, we presume, on the supposition that the Sanscrit d’h is represented by the Greek 6. Now, while it is quite correct to say that (as e.g. in dad’hami — τίθημι) 0 takes sometimes the place of dh in Sanscrit, it is nevertheless to be noticed, that, whereas d’h is a strong aspirate, @ differs from it. For the Greek ὃ and @, pronounced exactly like the Icelandic “ stungen duss” and “ thuss,” or th in “ this thing,” express each a single articulation, naturally allied to sibilants and to dentals, from which it differs by “lisping.” Whereas d’h expresses a double arti- culation ;—a clear dental or cerebral d, and an ὦ as- pirate, as in “hat.” The d clashes with the h and 9 114 causes a “break” in the articulation, not inaptly represented by the apostrophe in “dh.” Θεός there- fore, were it in sound alone, is more nearly related to “ Diu-s” or “ Deus,” “ Ζεύς," or even to“ Ju,” than to “@ha.” aa Prof. Lassen (Indische Alt. vol. i. p. 755) says, “Die bei den Indo-germanischen Voélkern am weitesten verbreitete, allgemeine Benennung Gottes lautet im Sanscrit déva-s, in Griechischen Θεός, im Lateinischen ‘deus,’” ete. (See also Pott. Etym. F. i. 101, sq.) It is true that “déva-s” is oftener met with than any other appellative for “ God,” in Indian writers; because, alluding almost constantly to some particular “déva-s,” inhabitant of “DIV,” ‘“ Heaven,’ or “ di- vine,” they spoke of him or of her as of an individual “ divus.” But DIV the parent of the “déva-s,” “ divi,” was never altogether lost sight of. The very worship of a “déva-s,” led thoughtful minds upwards to DIv. In like manner, as “θεοὶ θεῶν" ---“ Θεοῦ παῖδες," ete., reminded the wise of @es, who is * aidsios”—“* πρεσβύτατον τῶν ὄντων Θεός: ἀγέννητον γάρ" ‘els Θεὸς ὅς μόνος ἐστί,".--' πατὴρ θεῶι," etc. So that not only in the later Brahmanical times, did Arjuna say to Bhagavan, (Bhag. Gita. x. 12—14)— BHAVAN! Ὁ Eternal! — purushan shashwatan diviam ADIDEVAM ajam vib’hum || ahustwam Rishaya: sarve Devarshir Naradastat’ha. | “The chief sages, and even that Heavenly Rishi Narada declare, one and all, that Thou art that essence, eternal in the heavens, anterior to all the 115 déva-s, uncreated, over all, supreme”! “Swayan- chaiva bravishi me”! “ Nay, thou sayest it to me, thyself” ! * sarvametadritam manye yanmam vadasi Keshava! | na hi te, BHAGAVAN! vyaktim vidurdeva na danava:” | | “T take as truth itself, every word of thy lips, Ὁ Keshava! No! neither the sons of Danu, nor even the déva-s, know thine appearance, O Thou wor- shipful ”! * swayamevatmanatmanam vett’ha twam Purushottama!| b’hutab’havana b’hutesha DEVADEVA jagatpate!” | | * Thou, best of beings, author of all existence, Lord of all, God of Gods, Supreme Ruler of this world! Thou knowest Thyself, conscious as thou art of thine own essence,” ete. But even in the primitive ages of Vaidic lore, we find as we have seen, that Indra (DIU or DIV), “Heaven,” was “purvyo—eka it,” “of old” “verily ONE,” “PITA devanam janita sudak’sha” (Sama-V. ii. 1. 1. 10), “the Father and august ancestor of the gods, “ (déva-s)” who “chakrishe b’humim,” “made the earth” (Rig.-V. i. 4; xiv. 12), and who “vishwasya rajati” “ rules over all”! (Sama-V. 5. 2. 2. 10.) But who is that “In-prvipuaL,” ADITI? myste- rious even to the Vaidic priest who, of old, chanted: (Rig.-V.i. 6; xvi. 10). Aditi Diaur Aditirantarik’sham Aditirmata sa Pita sa putra: | 116 Vishwe deva Aditi; pancha jana Adititir janam Aditir janitwam. || | “ Aditi is Heaven; Aditi is the firmament; Aditi is Mother, she is Father, she is Son; Aditi is all the gods; Aditi is the five classes of men; Aditi is birth and reproduction.” 3 The scholiast (on Rig.-V. i. 6; xxxii. 16) explains “ADITI” by “adinak’handaniya va devamata,” ‘ impe- rishable, indivisible, or the ‘mother’ of the gods”; and (at xvi. 10) says of her: “Aditi:—diaur-naka:” | “ Aditi is ‘Heaven ’—and what is she not?” “saiva MATA nirmatri jagato janani | saiva PITA utpadaka:” | “she is both ‘ Mother’ 7. e., maker and bringer-forth of the world, and also ‘ Father’ who generates it.” It is impossible not to compare the above with what Lao-tsze says of TAOU (Bk. i. cxxv.), “Yew yih-wuh; hwen-tching, sian T’heen-Tih seng.” ‘* There is a Being who is One; who existed before Heaven and Earth.” “tsi-i! liao-i!” “how calm! how sub- tle”! “too-wei, Θὰ] puh ke,” “ He exists by Himself (or alone) and changes not”! “ko-i wei T’heen-hea moo.” ‘“ He may be considered as the Motusr of the whole world.” (‘"T’heen-Tih che she,” ¢. i.) “Puh chih ke ming; tsze-che yue TAOU.” I know not his name; by way of a name I call him “Taou. “TAouU” means “a way,” a “door of entrance” into existence for all beings; and as such, it may be compared with the account Movers (Phen. i. p. 594, sg.) gives of the Pheenician goddess “ Tir’ata” (14352, SAYIN) “ Atar- gatis”—(though taken there for the earth). This 117 “Shing-MOO,” “ Holy Mother of all,” is represented in the “ San-kiao-yuen-lew,” p. 9, 10, as a lady with a female attendant who holds a fan of feathers, and she is called “sian-T’heen tai-How,” “the great queen of the first (or fore) Heaven”; and, “yuen-T’heen ta shing-How,” the “ great and Holy Queen of the highest (oldest) Heaven.” Both “ADITI” and “TAOU” may be compared in their capacity of “ Mother,” with the symbolical hieroglyphic for “‘ Heaven,” (Champ. gr. Hg. p. 57,) which is “a woman protecting and nourishing her offspring”; and reads, “ne,” “ to be,” ‘existence;” and also “ne” or * de,” fem. “" Heaven.” ¥rom thence, no doubt, came “die ursprungliche Idee der ersten Mutter, der grossen Mutter, die alles was lebt aus Licht bringt” (Creuzer 5. ii. 466, 523)—who figures always as the “ Asiatic goddess” — Μητὴρ Ocdv”— Οὐρανία as fem. of Οὐρανός, ““ Οὐρανίη ’Adpodirn” -- ἡ μέν γέ που πρεσβυτέρα καὶ ἀμήτωρ Οὐρανοῦ θυγάτηρ, ἣν δὴ καὶ οὐρανίαν ἐπονομάζομεν" (Plato, Symp. sec. 8, ed. Bek.)—‘‘ Mater detim,” ‘“ Magna Dea,” “ πολύμαστος" (Guhl, Ephes. p. 78), “ Magna Dea Ephesiorum !”= Οὗπι ἄνασσα" (Call. H. in D. 240). *““API-r-no bod’hi Indra!”—“twaminna apyan”—‘ Ὁ Heaven be our fostering friend—for thou art akin to us!” (Sama-V. i. 3, 1, 5, 7; 2, 2, 8.) This seems to account for DIAU-S “ Heaven,” being both mase. as “ Father,” “ Protector,” ‘“ Saviour,” etc., and fem. as “ Mother,” who nourishes, etc. And it seems also to throw light on the following line, which, otherwise, is obscure: (Sama-V. ii. 6. 2. 7. 2.)— 118 garb’he Matu: pitus Pita vididyutano ak’share | Sidannritasya yonima | “the Sun, Father of Father (7. 6. of ‘Heaven,’ to which he gives ‘light and life’) shines forth in the imperishable womb of his Mother (Heaven), while he rests there in the bosom of truth.” It would be both rash and presumptuous to dis- pute the reasons, or to disparage the profound learn- ing, which have led those great men to differ among themselves, as to the etymology of Θεός; while they all agree in deriving “deus” from “ déva-s.” We have no doubt they are right, although we ean- not yet see as they do. But we rather lean towards the opinion of Buttmann, who (Mythologus, i. p. 28), says, speaking of “ Ζεύς" and * Διώνη," “Ziv” and Zavo,” * Jovis” and “ Juno”—“ welche Namen alle mit Θεός and θέαινα eigentlich sind.”* For, setting aside the ‘feeling’ that leads one instinctively to * Ζήν or Zdv, Ζηνός, etc., is not like Ζεύς, from DIU; but only the Greek idea of Ζεύς, “ ἀπὸ τοῦ Gy,” declined. We also differ from him at p. 173, where he says on the subject of “ Διόνυσος,᾽---“ Bekantlich heisst dewen auf Indisch Gott, welches wort mit Deus, mit Ζεύς und mit Διός einerlei ist.” As “ Ju- bar”—« Φώσφορος," may possibly, have something to do with Diu-b’hara, bara or vara; so also, perhaps, may “ Διόνυσος" be compared with Diu (acc. Diun), and ushas, “Ἢ aurora.” 119 look elsewhere than among the “ plebs cceli,” for the parent of Θεός or of ‘“ Deus,” we do not appreciate the reasons for which, while “ Ζεύς," “ Σδεύς, “ Δεύς" (and, under Attic influence, “ @ei;”*), “ diuvei,” ἐ δου ει," ‘juveis,” ‘* Diovi,” ‘ dies,” “ dies-piter,” “diu” or “Του Ilarep,” * Διός," “ Ai,” “Δία, are all with one consent derived from Diu, Div, or Dio,— “ Déus” and “ @és” on the other hand, are, with no small trouble, exorcised out of the adjective “ DEVA-S.” Is it because Ζεύς being used in the singular, and “Θεός in the sing. and plur. as mase. and fem., Ζεύς corresponds “ practically” with Diu, ‘“‘ Heaven” and θεός, and θεοί, with “déva-s” and “ déva-s;” or with d’ha, “to uphold”? The first reason would be, “ prac- tically” speaking, valid, if DIU or Div had no plural: but it has both dual and plural; so that the “ plu- rality” of θεός may be accounted for. Besides, we have “ Jupater,”’ or ‘“ Djovis,” in the plural in Igu- vin. Tab. iv. 52; and vii. 13, 50, where we read “* Jovies,” which, whether it be taken for “ magis- trates” or not, is the plural of “ diu” or Ιου Πατεῤ (like ποις and pty —« yazd” and “ yazdan”).—As re- gards the “ common” gender of ὁ and ἡ ‘“ θεός," that, as we have seen, betrays its origin from DIU-S, masc. and fem.—As to the ““ θ᾽ of θεός, it is, in pronun- ciation, more nearly related to the sibilants “¢” in . ™ It is in this sense that at p. 89 “ @es” is men- tioned under the “ Attic” dialect, instead of “ Doric.” 120 “ Zebs,” Or “oa” in * Suds” (comp. Span. “zapato” pr. “ thapato”; and “ ciencia” pr. “ thienthia,” etc.), or to the dental “d” in Δεύς (pr. of old probably, as it is now, ‘ theus,” soft) or in “ Deus,” as we pronounce it; or even the palatal “7” or “g” (as “théné” for “‘ venou” in a Romance-dialect) than to “d’h,” either dental or cerebral, as it is pronounced in India; where, on the other hand, the semi-vowel “y” is frequently changed into “j” or “dj” as it is im Bengal. And as to the short ὅ of θεός or of Déus—so short that it often counts as nothing,—we cannot help thinking that, as we have already said, it is a more fitting representative of the short “7” in Div, or of the semi-vowel “y” in Dyu, Diu, than of the com- pound (and almost invariably long) vowel @, in Déva-s. Prof. Bopp (Comp. gr. i. p. 4, Eng. tr.) says, “From this dropping of the ὁ or wu in the Indian diphthongs ὃ and 6, it may happen that a, 6, or 0, answer to these diphthongs”; “thus dévrz, Lat. levir, Gr. δαήρ; déva-s ‘God’ Θεός," etc. But it appears to us,—1.) that whether the 6 (compound of a+i pron. as one) be long or short, the element “7” still forms a part of the sound e (which in the “ per- fect” Sanscrit is reckoned long as being a compound vowel.—2.) The element “7” therefore, still exists in the short ¢ of θεός or Déus, as well as in the é of déva-s; as also in the short ε of Ζεύς, which reappears as a short “2” or “y” in Zws=Aus, Ζιι--- Διί, Za—=—Aia— 3.) If “e” is admitted to be a fit representative of “7” 121 or “y,” in Ζεύς, as from DIU,—why not also in “ déus” or “ @eds”?—4.) What becomes of the “vu” of “déva-s,” in “déus” and ““ θεός "ἢ +“ Déva-s,”. “ divus,” and “dévri” (déva) Sajo lévir—keep throughout their eases the “v,” as a binding articulation, indispens- able between the long vowels δ and 4, and graceful between the long and short of Divas, Divi, Divo, etc. This “v” reappears in the digamma of “ SvovFer,” “iuvei,” “diovi,” “Jovis,” ete., while not a vestige of it is found in the oblique cases of “ Déus” or of ““ θεός." Now—5), the presence of this connecting “v” or “Fy” rather than the absence of it in “de-us” and ““θε-ός," argues a polished state of the language; for “divi” is more agreeable to the ear than “ Διί" We should feel inclined therefore,—6.) to look upon “ Déus,” “ dé-i,” “dé-o,” “dé-um,” etc. and Θεός, θε-οῦ, θε-ῷ, θε-όν, θε-ῶν, θε-ο-ἴς, etc. as a more ancient declension of DIUS, than “di-v-as,” “di-v-i,” etc., indicated by the Vaidic ace. “di-um” for the more modern “di-v-am.” So that, for aught we know, “deus” and θεός, may be older, and continue more true to their monosyllabic origin Diu-s, than does even Diu-s itself in the melodious strains of Valmiki-Kokila. For as Dyus or Diu-s is one syllable; so is “diis” and “dis,” “dii” and “ di”; like Ζεύς, Θεύς, Θεός, Θεούς, etc., and “ Θεῶν, which comes nearer to “di-(v)-am,” gen. pl. of DIU or DIV, than to “ dévanam,” gen. pl. of “déva-s.” - With every due deference therefore to the great scho- lars above-named, and while wondering at derivations like δαίμων from “atma,” “caminus” from “ ashment,” 122 ete., we still find it easier to bring “Deus,” Aevs, Θεός; διου OF [Ιου(πατεῤ), Dios, Deos, Dio, Ddio, Dieu, Dia, Diu, etc., from DYU or DIU-S, than from DEVA-S. We do not think that in the beginning men sought “the true God” from among a host of ready-made and inferior gods. On the contrary, we believe that, in like manner as DIU, DIV, preceded in existence and as object of worship his offspring DEVA-S “ divi,” so also was ‘ Θεὸς ἀγέννητος," “ εἷς," * μόνος," ““ Ζεὺς πατήρ," “Ziv,” “Life itself,’ adored before “Θεοῦ παῖδες, who, as Apollo said of them at Claros, are, “ μικρὸν μέρος Θεοῦ". But since— “rd μὲν γὰρ πατρόθεν, ἐκ Διὸς εὔ--- χοντο ""--- they each took for their patronymic, the name of their father, most in use; especially when worshipped in- stead of him. So that on the one hand the same men who professed their belief in “ éva @eov”—wor- shipped with him a multitude of ““ Θεοί" as born of him; and, on the other hand, following the example of their Vaidic ancestors, they used “divus” exactly as those did “deva-s,” and 6. g., called their “ Prin- cipes Dei Coelum et Terra, Saturnus et Ops,”—* Dei magni,” ‘“ Divi qui potes,” in thom ancient rituals (Varro L. L. v. 57). We lean, therefore, on the whole, to the ¢ opinion of VY. Lennep (Et. Grac. sub. v. Ζεύς), who says: “ Variee sunt forme nominum, quibus olim Jupiter, deorum summus, appellabatur, ut Ζεύς, Ziv, Zdv, Als, 123 Διός et forte alia, quee omnia mihi quidem videntur unum idemque nomen fuisse, dialectis diversorum Greecizee populorum distinctum.—Inter hec nomen Θεός, Atticis proprium, communi usu postea tritum fuit tanquam appellativum Dei cujusvis,” etc. And we believe accordingly, that the original creed of only “‘ one God,” degenerated —* ἀσθενείᾳ δηλώσεως--- into idolatry; “Sore γνόντες τὸν Θεόν, οὐχ ὡς Θεόν ἐδό- ξασαν ἤ εὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ’ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλο- γισμοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία." We would therefore, look up to the “source of light and life” of our world, who was of old —“Raga,” “ xoopoxpatwp, “ αἰεὶ πανυπέρτατος " —“ DEVA,” “ Φώσ- gopos,” “ οὐράνιον, καὶ ζωῆς, das”—“ RITAM BRIHAT” (AROS PS) a Mighty Truth, “ ἀληθής “ ὄμμα δικαιο- σύνης —“*SHUCHI:” “ ἀμίαντος," ““ dyvds’—“* SUPAR- WA:,” “Παιάν, “ with healmg wings”—“ DIUMAN DEVAJATA:” ““ αἰθαλής," ““αὐτοφυής," “’AOA’'NATOX ΖΕΥ͂ >,” whom Proclus (Η. in Solem) addresses thus: “ κλῦθι, πυρὸς voepod βασιλεῦ--- ---θεῶν πανάριστε, πυριστεφὲς, ὄλβιε δαῖμον, εἰκὼν παωγγενέταο θεοῦ, ψυχῶν ἀνωγωγεῦ, κέκλυθι, καὶ με κάθηρον ἁμαρτάδος αἰὲν ἁπάσης." for, “ caldor cceli et inde anima,”—and, as Epicharmus says— Est de sole sumptus ignis, isque totus mentis est” (Varro, L. L. v.16); we would look, we say, to “ Pitus-Pita,” the father of “ Heaven” “DIAUR-iva” “with whom He is ONE” (S-V. ii. 6. 2. 6. 1; 3. 1. 6.1; 1.5. 1. 45 1.2.8.3. ete. Orph. H. viii. and 124 xxxiv.) rather than an inferior “ DEVA-S,” for an emblem, however dim, of Him, “ who— as WS oT OP bape γα -ππο WW wo καὶ ἡ wrt SI ge ent ope Gy οἱ» dwells on high beyond the flight of Seraphim, from whence he looks on me” ;—* the faithful attendant of my daily life, my Sun and my God”! (Djellal ed-D. p- 220). For He is “TO ΦΩΣ TO ’AAHOINON, ς ῃ , ” 3 / > ‘ ’ ” ὁ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς TOV κόσμον. We have found MIGHT and MAJESTY in by, HON and poy; and we believe also that in ΘΕΟΣ we may find “ THE ONE supreme,” with whom “is the FOUNTAIN OF LIFE, and in whose Light alone we shall see Light.” For ΘΕΟΣ, Devs, conveyed, like the object it was intended to express, ONE idea of “ protecting ght and life.” ‘“ Heaven,” says Alviss — “ Himinn heitir med Ménnom, Enn Hlyrnir med Gothom” : is called — “A covering (or veil) among men, And a bower among the gods” *— (Alvis-Mal. xii.) — *“ Quoi par imber, et ignis, spiritus, et gravi terra; Quzeque freto cava ceeruleo cortina receptat.” —(Ennius, Annal. i. 16.) 125 made by Him who ΠΡ ἽΞ DY Moi “ stretcheth the Heavens like a curtain” (Psalm civ. 2; Isaiah xl. 22). And “ Diaus Pita,” Protecting, or “trata,” Sa- viour HEAVEN, DIU or DIV, “ Θεὸς ἀγένητος"--- “ Acan raochanhan qadhatanam,” “ the bright Heaven of the self-existing lights,”* was always looked up ({ sub eodem tegmine celi.”—(Luer. ii. 661, 1. 986.) And “ceelo tegitur qui non habet urnam.” (Lucan.) ‘“ Himinn” also means “a shield.”—(Virg. Ain. lib. iv. 1.451.) “ Celi convexa.”—Compare ‘¢___ in altisono celi clypeo” — (Ennius, Iphig.) and “THe Lorp 1s A Sun AND SuretD” (Psalm Ixxxiv. 12). From whence “ the earth”— “ Jérth heitir meth Ménnom > Enn meth Asom Fold’— is called among men “a field,” which among the gods is said to be “ covered” (Alvis-Mal. 10). Comp. “sky,” Swed. a “ cloud,” a “ covering,” with “ sky ;” and Sama-V. i. 2, 1, ὃ, 7; and 11. 4,14, 1). Indra— “b’harti—opashamiva Diam,” ‘“ spreads Heaven like a covering” —“ yatsamavartayad | Indrashcharmeva rodasi” — with which he has enveloped Heaven and Earth as with a mantle” (ibid. i. 2, 2, 4, 8), ete. * The zend qadhata, “ self-existing,” “ uncreated,” (swadatta ?) may be related to the Persian \ys “ Khu- 126 to, AS μάκαρ ἐπάγων ξωὴν ὁσίην---(ΟΥἸΡἢ.)---ἀπαθῆ τὴν ἀρίστην ἔχοντα ζωήν---( Arist. de Οα]ο, i. 9, 14)—and was invoked as— 3 la “ Οὐρανὲ παγγενέτωρ," -“΄ πανυπέρτατε δαίμον |” (Orph. H. iv.) And this accounts for the idea of ‘ Oneness,” or “Unity,” which seems to exist in the word Θεός, as it is found occasionally in Greek writers; as, 6. g., “Θεόν λασέμεν ἔρδων,᾽ σὺν Θεῷ, (comp. “ under God” sub “ dio” vel ‘“‘divo,” etc.). And Simonides, fr. iv:— ὦ παῖ, τέλος μὲν ΖΕΥΣ ἔχει βαρύκτυπος πάντων --- ὅπως ἕκαστον ἐκτελευτήσει ΘΕΟΣ. And Cleanthes (H. in Joy. )— “ΖΕΥ͂, φύσεως ἀρχηγὲ, νόμου μέτα πάντα KuBepvav,— δύσμοροι, οἵτ᾽ ἀγαθῶν μὲν ἀεὶ κτῆσιν ποθέοντες, οὔτ᾽ ἐσορῶσι ΘΕΟΥ͂ κοινὸν νόμον, οὔτε κλύουσιν, ᾧ κεν παθόμενοι σὺν νῷ βίον ἐσθλὸν ἔχοιεν "" a But that unity in worship continued dimly per- ceived among the better-informed only; while the ἐς plebs ceeli,” the whole host of Heaven, all the cre- ated dévas, divi, gods and demi-gods, endowed with da,” God, which (see above, p. 47) means Sway- amb’hu, MM’. (see Burnouf, Yacna, pp. 553-556); rather than the Ar. »,> (pr. “ good” in Egypt), * good,” “ excellent” (see Pfeifferi Dub. vex. p. 148), 127 human passions good and bad, became the sole object of worship of the common people, instead of the One God. That one idea, then, the original import of Θεός, once lost in gross idolatry, Θεός no longer implied “Heaven,” as “the One God”; but it now chiefly meant “a god” only,—one of the many “ gods” ha- bitually supposed to inhabit Heaven.. And, although, as Eusebius remarks ( Preep. Ev. lib. iii. p. 141, ed. Col.), πρώτιστα πάντων τὸν πρῶτον ἀφορίσαντες θεὸν, εἰδένας φασί τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι πρῶτόν τε ὄντα καὶ πάντων θεόν, πατέρα τε καὶ βασιλέα" μεθ᾽ ὅν γένος τὸ θεῶν ὑπάρχειν δεύτερον, ἑπόμενον δὲ τὸ δαιμόνων, τὸ δὲ ᾿Ηρώων, τέταρτον, yet such a religion was not that of the many. But, φάσκοντες πρῶτον ἁπάντων τοὺς Οὐρανίους δεῖν καὶ aife- ρίους θεοὺς θεραπεύειν, *¢ while saying they ought to worship the celestial and the ethereal gods first ; δεύτερον, τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς δαίμονας, τρίτον, τὰς τῶν “Ἡρώων ψυχὰς, τέταρτον, τοὺς φαύλους, καὶ πονηροὺς ἀπομειλίσσε- ται daipovas;” then, in the second place, the good spi- rits ; thirdly, the souls of great men; and, fourthly, to propitiate the evil spirits; yet ἔργῳ συγχέουσι τὰ πάντα, “ they, in fact, mixed it up altogether,” μόνας ἀντὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων, τὰς πονηρὰς δυνάμεις θεραπεύ- οντες, καὶ ὅλοι ταύταις καταδουλόυμενοι" “ serving, out of all those, the powers of evil alone, and giving them- selves up wholly to worship them.” It would be wrong to affirm that they all wilfully did so. Yet it is true that even the greatest and the best of them were led passively, by “ the vanity of 128 their mind;” and that, as Ulphilas renders it, “ riqi- zeinai gahugdai visandans,” existing in a darkened | imagination, “ they were alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in them.” Even Cicero, then, is right in finding fault with the “ deus Plato,” for having no fixed opinion on the subject. For, discoursing on Providence, this great man says (de Leg. lib. x.): “Τὸ might not be difficult to prove ---ΩοὍς ἐπιμελεῖς σμικρῶν εἰσι θεοὶ οὐχ ἧττόν, ἢ τῷ μεγέθει διαφερόντων, “that the gods are not less careful of little things than of more important ones”; else- where, he attributes the same care, not to “ the gods,” but to Θεός, God; and further, again to the θεοί, gods; and so on, repeatedly. While, on the other hand, he speaks, as, ¢.g., in his Timeeus, of Θεός, “‘God,” as Creator of the world; he attributes the same office also to “Jupiter.” And in his Philebus, after having taught in a masterly manner his views of the supreme and overruling “ Σοφία καὶ Νοῦς," which ἄνευ ψυχῆς οὐκ ἄν πότε yevoicOnv, aS belonging to Θεός, he sums up thus: “ Od« οὖν ἐν μὲν τῇ Tou Διὸς ἐρεῖς φύσει, βασιλικὴν μέν ψυχὴν, βασιλικὸν δὲ Νοῦν ἐγγίνεσθαι, διὰ τὴν τῆς αἰτίας δύναμιν." “ You are then driven, by the force of the argument, to conclude that there is in- nate in the nature of Jove, both an over-ruling (a regal) soul, and an over-ruling (a regal) mind,’—a faculty which he attributes (in de Leg. lib. x.) to “* the gods,” when he Says: “ αὕτη τοι δίκη ἐστὶ θεῶν, οἵ ᾿᾽Ολυμπον ἔχουσιν." “Πάντα γάρ που τὰ τοιᾶυτα" (says Max. Tyrius), Ὁ Δ Σ e op ij) dell a Sl lel IRS aa 129 ἀπορίᾳ ὄψεως; καὶ ἀσθενείᾳ δηλώσεως, καὶ γνώμης ἀμβλύ- τητι, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον δύνανται ἕκαστοι ἐξαιρόμενοι τῇ φαντασίᾳ --- (ἴδοις ἄν)---πάντας δὲ πᾶσι διαφερομένους --- μὴ γὰρ ὅτε γέ- vos γένει ὁμολογεῖ ἐν τούτοις ---ἀλλ᾽ ὀυδὲ ἀνὴρ ἀνδρὶ, ὀυδὲ αὐτὸς αὑτῶ." In the midst of such confusion, it became neces- sary, as we have already remarked, once more to distinguish the true Θεός from among “ the gods,” “oi” and “ ai Geol.” This was done, generally speak- ing, by means of the article ;—‘‘od γὰρ Θεόν ἀπλῶς προσεῖπεν 6 (ἀπόστολος) TH τοῦ ἄρθρου προτάξει Tov ITANTOKPATOPA δηλώσας" (says Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 460, ed. Col.)—and θεός, a god, became Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ, emphatically, the ONLY TRUE GOD of the Bible. Vil. We now come to the three terms found in the Chinese classics, which have been mentioned as ren- dering Ex, Exoan, ELonIM, Θεός, and ὁ Θεός, into that language. I—T’HEEN, FE “ Heaven.” Its radical (37th) is TA Jy “great,” with a line above, to denote what “is above,” and “ great.” (‘T’heen ta,” ‘“ Heaven is great,” says Lao-tsze, Ὁ. xxv. Comp. Οὐρανός, “ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄνω ὁρᾶσθαι, Phurnut. de N. D. i. etc.) Like “DIV,” T’HEEN, both means “ the Sky,” and is also ; a 130 frequently used in- the sense of “ Deus,” “ Θεός," as the abode of a supreme and intelligent Power, who, ruling from above, observes, and punishes or rewards, the actions of men. We have seen that Confucius had no distinct notions of SHIN; he therefore men- tions T7HEEN much more frequently. Thus— 1) in the Chung- Yung (c. i, 1), T7HEEN-ming-che wei sing, (which is rendered in the Mandchou trans- lation, Abka-i hesebuhengge-be, Banin sembi:)—‘ That which is ordered by Heaven is called ‘ nature’.” 2) ibid. (c. xiv. 3): shang, puh yuen T’HEEN; hea, puh yew jin:—There is no situation in which a wise man is not contented: “above, he does not repine against Heaven; and below, he does not think evil of men.” 3) ibid. (c. xvii. 3): T7HEEN-che seng wuh, peik yen ke thsai, eul too yan. (In Mandchou : Urunako tergi tedun-be dakhame nemebumbi:—“ In the production of things, Heaven assuredly gives them increase ac- cording to their capacity (or disposition ).” 4) ibid. (c. xvii. 4): The She-king (or book of Odes) says: Show luh yu T’HEEN, paou koo ming-che, tsze T’HEEN shin-che: “ The virtuous man receives his earthly blessings from Heaven. His intentions are only to value and to protect others; and (Mandch. Abka-chi dakhame daptambi) he receives from Heaven, χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, ‘ favour above favour’.” 5) ibid. (c. xx. 7): “In order to know men, ἃ Ss Oe Υ ee a 131 man, puh ko-i puh chi T’HEEN, cannot but sonal himself with Heaven.” : 6) ibid. (c. xxvi.): The She-king says: Wei T’HEEN-che ming, yu muh puh i kae yue T’HEEN-che so-i wei T’HEEN yay: “ The power of Heaven alone is without limit; that, we may say, is the prerogative of Heaven.” 7) ibid. (c. xxxii. 2, 3): T7HEEN-TE, “ Heavenly virtue” is said (in c. xxxiii. 6) to be, Shang-T’ HEEN- che tsae, “a thing from High Heaven.” 8) In the Shang-Lun (book i. c. ii. 4), Confucius says: “ At fifteen, chi T7HEEN-ming, J understood the Ming,* or the ‘ rule of Heaven’.” 9) ibid. (book iii. c. i. 12), Chee-kung, speaking of Confucius, said: ‘Foo-tsze-che yen sing yu T’HEEN- TAOU, puh-ko tih eul wan yay: “‘ As to ‘ master’s’ (nature) manner of speaking of the ‘ way of Heaven’ (or Providence, who rewards the good, and punishes the wicked, Shoo-king, iii. 2, 3), I cannot understand it the least.” 10) ibid. (book iii. c. ii. 26), Confucius says: Yu so p’hei-chay, T’heen ye-che! T’heen ye-che! “ With * Ming, in this sense, is, “‘ the right principles which Heaven has ordered,’ should form a part of man’s nature. (See above, Ch. Yung. i. and Shoo-king, i. 55 di..2; iti. 2.) 132 regard to what is evil, may Heaven preserve me from it! may Heaven prevent it!” 11): ibid. (book v. ο. i. 10), Confucius says: Wo shwuy k’he, ΚΘ T7HEEN hoo? ‘ Whom have I op- posed? Have 1 opposed Heaven ὃ" 12) in the Hea-Lun (c. xvi. 7), Confucius says, that the wise man has three objects of fear: Wei T’HEEN-ming; wei ta-jin; wei Shing-jin-che yen. ‘ He stands in awe of the commands of Heaven;—of men in authority ;—and of the sayings of holy men.”* 13) Lao-tsze, in the Tao-te-king (book i. 9), speaks of T7HEEN-che Taou “the way” (Taou, 6 Adyos) “* of Heaven.” 14) ibid. (c. 10), he mentions the T7HEEN-MUN, “ the gates of Heaven” (Ὁ Θ᾽ °N77 Psalm Ixxviii.). Lao-tsze mentions very often T’heen-Tih, ‘‘ Heaven and Earth,” as resulting from the two principles Yin and Yang (see Le-ke, c. viii. x. ete.) (comp. Γαῖα καὶ Οὐρανὸς --- ἐκ τῶν ἐγένοντο Ocoi—Hes. Theog. 45, 125); ¢.g., Tao-te-king, (book i. c. 5), T7HEEN-TIH puh jin: “ Heaven and Earth have no affection” (in particular for any one); that is to say, that “ the temporal blessings of both are impartially bestowed”. (‘‘ He causeth his Sun,” etc., and “ giveth seed to the sower, and bread to the eater,” etc.) To Heaven and Earth, the tivo great annual sacrifices, “ kiao” * Or “sages”; or sometimes, also, “ the emperor”. 133 and “she” (Ch. Yung, c. xix.; and Le-ke, c. viii. x.) were offered,-as being both the parents of all things, “ δωτῆρες ἐάων" (Tao-te-king, c. vii). To T’HEEN, then, as to the abode of SHANG-TE and of his ministers (Geo! ᾿Ολύμπιοι Of China), a sacri- fice was offered by the Emperor himself, as the most solemn act of worship; and in order to promote “ Ta- yih,” “ great unity” in religious rites. For it is ex- pressly said, that, during that sacrifice, every god, and even sse-fang SHIN, “the Spirits of the four quar- ters,” received the homage respectively due to them. (See Le-ke, c. viii. x. etc.) Throughout the classical Chinese writings, therefore, we constantly meet with such expressions as these: Shang-T’HEEN, “ High Heaven” ;—Hwang-T’HEEN, “ Imperial Heaven”; and also HWANG-T’HEEN SHANG-TE, “ Imperial Hea- ven-Shang-Te” ;— T’HEEN-wei, “the fear of Hea- ven” ;—T’HEEN-WEI, “the Majesty of Heaven” ;— THEEN-sin, “ the heart, or intention of Heaven” ;— T’HEEN-tsae, ‘ calamities sent from Heaven” ;— T’HEEN-yih, ‘ Heaven’s minister” ;—T’HEEN-yuen- tsze, ‘* Heaven’s chief son”; or, T’HEEN-tsze, “ Hea- ven’s son,” meaning the Emperor, who is Heaven’s Regent over T’HEEN-Hea, “ under Heaven,”—that is, the Empire. The above examples, all taken from classic authors, go to prove that T’HEEN, “ Heaven,” is used by the Chinese in a broad, indefinite sense, very much as it is done by Christians, who seem to shrink from the name of “ Gop,” and substitute “ Heaven” or “ Na- 134 ture” in His stead ;—like Οὐρανός, as παγγενέτωρ, and πανυπέρτατος Aaiwwv; OF aS θεῶν ἕδος, αἰπὺς "Ολυμπος.-- (Hor. Ep. vi.) ({ deorum quidquid in Celo regit Terras et humanum genus.” T’HEEN, however, would be inadmissible as a sub- stitute for Ex, Exoan, ELtonim, ΘΕΟΣ, or ὁ ΘΕΟΣ; because — 1) being a visible object, it would lead to idolatry. 2) because the Joo (or disciples of Confucius) and the Shamans (or Buddhists) adopt it, only as abode of the Supreme Being, SHANG-TE; whom even the latter, it appears from the “ Rituel Mandchou,” 17, 37, acknowledge as “ Ruler in Heaven”; in like manner as we use the term “ court,” for the judgments and decisions of the judge who sits in that court. | 3) because the Taouists, while they acknowledge that T’7HEEN ta, “ Heaven is great,”—that T’7HEEN kiaou, ““ Heaven reaches to an immeasurable anti- quity” (or, “is eternal,” as some say), they hold that Taou-ta, “the Taou, ὁ Adyos,” is greater; for, as we have already seen, “it is the origin of Heaven and Earth”; and (Tao-te-k. ¢. vii.) is above all: for jin fa Tih; Tih fa T’HEEN; T’HEEN fa TAOU; TAOU fa tsze yan, “ Man follows the rule of the Earth; the Earth follows that of Heaven; Heaven follows the rule of Taou; and Taou follows no rule but his own.” T’HEEN, therefore, will not do to express “ God”; 135 for, by the showing of the Chinese themselves, it is both “indefinite,” puh neng kiaou, ‘“ perishable ”? and “ inferior” to a higher Being. VIII. II.—The second term proposed is the dreaded SHIN. _. This word, written in Chinese, ji is made up of two characters ; viz., its own radical Jj, SHE (113th el.), and the symbol SHIN, # (referred to class 102.) Itisa “ hwei-i,” or character “ with a com- bined meaning.” | In A, Remusat’s Chin. Gr. p. 17, and in four other works in French, which follow him, the meaning of this radical SHE is given simply as “ génie terrestre” ; and in A. R.’s Gr. p. 85, it is further translated by “to look into.” Dr. Morrison, in his Gr. p. 30, ren- ders it by “ to admonish”; in his Dict. p. 5, by “ to admonish, enjoin’; and at p. 769, he describes it as derived “ from a horizontal line, representing Heaven, and three perpendicular strokes, representing the light coming down from the sun, moon, and stars; a sign from Heaven; a declaration of the will of Heaven,” etc. Mr. Williams (Easy Lessons, p. 17) follows Dr. Morrison. But both Dr. Morrison and his followers omit the important meaning given by the French scholars, who found it, as we do ourselves, in Kang- He’s Dictionary, which is the standard work of the kind in Chinese, where it says (Pin-Dsi-hea, Ὁ. 18, 136 rad. “she.” col. 2), that the Ta tsung-pin (an officer of the Le-poo, or “ tribunal of ceremonies”), presides over T’heen-Shin, Jin-kwei, Tih-SHE-le, the rites con- nected with the “ Shin of Heaven, the souls of men, and the SHE of the Earth,” from whence SHE hwo tso ke; “SHE” must mean a “ke,” or “Spirit” (genii) of the Earth. ey The other element of “SHIN” is its phonetic “shin,” which means “to spread abroad,” “ to mul- tiply again and again.” It affects, therefore, the question very materially (placed as it was at first in Dr. Morrison’s hands alone, as regards this country), whether “ SHIN” means “an expansion of the Divine will,” as he says; or, as it may also be taken to mean (though he says it not), “ an expansion of Spirits or Genii,” according to the meaning, suppressed in Dr. Morrison’s Dictionary, but found in Kang-He’s. This omission of Dr. Morrison’s is the more significant, as he plainly says (to the probable surprise of his fol- lowers in favour of “ SHIN”), at vol. i. p. 804 of his Dictionary, art. “tsung,” that it appears from a, pas- sage of the Shoo-king (which we shall examine pre- sently), “that the ‘SHIN,’ or gods, denote a sort of spirits like the Roman genii, or the Greek demons.” For, in vol. iii. p. 772 of his Dictionary, Dr. Mor- rison explains SHIN by “ from to extend, and signs from Heaven.” Every evanescent, invisible, inseru- table, spiritual, operating power or cause, is called “sHin.” “A spirit; the human spirit; Divinity ; God, in the sense of the heathen nations; Divine, re 137 spiritual ; the animal spirit,’ etc. But not a word about “ demons or genii,” as in vol. i. p. 804. This is a singular omission, which, perhaps, we would not have pointed out, were it not that so much stress is laid on Dr. Morrison’s example and authority in the matter of SHIN. Mr. Callery, however (Syst. Phon. p- 104), gives as the only meaning of “ Shin,’— « spiritus,” “ genius,” “idolum,” “ mysterium.” We shall have occasion, in this matter, to recur to the standard authority of Kang-He. But the real meaning of SHIN can only be ga- thered from classical authors. We will begin with Confucius. He seldom spoke of SHIN, as we have seen; and as Mencius also says of him. We do not remember meeting with it in the “ Ta-Hio.” . The first mention Confucius makes of SHIN, is — 1) in the Chung-Yung (c. xvi. A. Rem. ed. p. 320), where he quotes the She-king thus: SHIN-che, kih-sze, puh-ko t’hoo-sze, shin ko shay-sze. The proper meaning of which is given in the Mandchou transla- tion: Enduri-i ebudchirengge botutchi odchorako bade, geouledetchi ombi-o, sehepi. ‘‘ Since we cannot reckon upon (or perceive) the coming down of SHIN (Spirits), shall we become better ware of it, if we treat them negligently?” This passage is enlarged upon by Confucius, : 2) in the same chapter of the Ch. Yung, when he Says : KWEI-SHIN-che-te! ke shing ee-hoo! she-che, eul fei kian! t’hing-che, eul fei wun! t’he wuh, eul puh-ko 138 wei! Yang yang hoo! Joo tsae ke shang; joo tsae ΚΘ. tso-yew! ‘Oh! how great are the properties (te, ‘ vir- tutes’) of the ‘Souls-and-Spirits’! (Shoo-king, iv. 8.) You look and you cannot see them! You listen and you cannot hear them! They form a part of the essence of things, and cannot be separated from them. Like a flood in amplitude, they are, as it were above, as it were all around, on the right and on the left !” As “ΚΎΕΙ very frequently occurs in conjunction with SHIN (KWEI-SHIN), let us at once ascertain its meaning; for it will throw some light on that οὗ SHIN. In the Le-ke (c. xix.), Tsai-go says to Con- fucius : Wo wun KWEI-SHIN-che ming; puh chih ke so wei: ‘‘ 1 have heard the name of KWEI-SHIN; but I do not know what it is.” Confucius replied: Ee-yay- chay, SHIN-che ching yay; P’hih-yay-chay, KWEI-che- ching yay: ‘“ The breath is the (completion) mani- festation of the SHIN or spirit (of man); P’hih, or the faculty or sense of each organ,* is the manifestation of the soul.” Ho KWEI yu SHIN, kiaou-che-chih yay: ‘The union of KWEI with SHIN (in one term) is the highest subject of instruction.” This term has been framed according to the nature of man’s spirit, in * P*hih urh muh che tsung-ming: “ P’hih is, in the ear and in the eye, that which hears and perceives.” Phih jin Yin Shin: ‘ P’hih is man’s Yin (i. ¢., ob- scure, inferior, female, principle), spirit.” a ma ἫΣ 2 3 ‘4 -. ; ; Ε ; 189 order to give a rule or pattern to the people, and that all men should stand in awe; and for that purpose also have holy men instituted sacrifices to the “ Ee,” and to the “ P*hih-ke.” It does not appear from the above, that Confucius himself had a very clear perception of the relative difference, between Ee, Shin, P’hih, kwei, Ling, etc. We may gather from it, however, that “Ee,” the breath, is a sensible demonstration of the Shin (or spirit) of man; and that P*hih is the sensitive faculty of man, which, through his organs of sense, both impresses, and is itself impressed by, his sentient soul “kwei.” For besides that, there is the active and efficient “Ling” (see Shang-Mang, i.). It will be sufficient for our purpose, however, to adopt the definition of “ KWEI-SHIN,” given by A. Remusat,* of “ ghosts,” * In his edition of the Ch. Yung (Notices et Extr. des Mos. p. 412), KWEI, “les manes des hommes, Vhomme mort; étres surnaturels dépendant du prin- cipe passif” (P’hih, as we have seen above, which is the Yin-Shin of man). ‘‘ Les Mandchous les nomment ‘Hodou’ (this word is adopted in the Mandchou New Testament for ‘devils’ and ‘unclean spirits’). C’est en un certain sens, le mauvais génie, le génie passif, mort,” etc. “SHIN par opposition ἃ KWEI, l’homme vivant son 4me? ce quil y a de spirituel, d’excellent dans Univers. Les Mandchoun disent, ‘Endouri’ Le 140 “souls of departed men and spirits;” and we shall render “kwei-Shin” (which is meant to express “ spi- rits” in general, of the dead and of the living world), by “ Souls-and-Spirits.” 3) ibid. (c. xxix.). “A good prince,” says Con- fucius, “regulates himself upon Heaven and Earth, 4 and che shoo KWEI-SHIN eul wo i; chi T’heen-yay”:. a “while he approves himself to the ‘ Souls-and-Spirits,’ | nothing doubting; and learns to know Heaven.” 4) ibid. (c. xxiv.). “A perfect man can even “3 Dict. Mandchou explique ce mot de la maniére sui- vante :— * An-i gengiyen ferguetchoun-be, Endouri sembi. WNi- yalma gingulembime saburako tundchirako tchoktehen-de arboun-be doursoukileme arafi touborongge-be kemou Endouri sembi.” “La partie surnaturelle et lumineuse du Yang (le principe actif et vivant) se nomme Endouri. On ap- pelle généralement Hndouri tous ces étres que les hommes adorent sans les voir ni les entendre, et a la place desquels ils mettent, pour leur sacrifier, une image qui les représente,” etc. “Les deux mots réunis, KWEI-SHIW en Mandchou Endouri-hodou, expriment dans le langage philoso- phique des lettrés, l’action des deux principes, leur force inhérente, leur vertu efficace.” And he adds:— “Rien de plus obscur que ce qui est dit des ‘ KWEI- SHIN’ dans les livres Chinois,” etc. 141] foresee good and evil; and in this respect he is joo SHIN like Shin (the Spirits).” 5) Shang-Lun (book ii. 1.12). Confucius says: tse joo tsae! tse SHIN, joo SHIN tsae! ‘‘ Worship as if it were a reality! Worship Shin (the Spirits) as if SHIN were present”?! (See above, p. 14.) 6) Hea-Lun (book iv. 1, 34). The Loi says: taou eul yu shang-hea, SHIN KE: “Pray ye to above and below; to the Spirits of the air, and to those of the earth.” (See also Shoo-King, iii. 3; iv. 5; v. 1; i, 4.) 7) Lao-tsze (Tao-te-k. booki. c. 6) says: koo-SHIN puh sze: “The Shin (Spirits) of the valley do not die.” If “Shin” can be taken here in the singular, it is meant. for “ Taou,” ὁ Aédyos. 8) ibid. (c. xxix.). “Shin” may be taken adjec- tively in ‘’heen-hea, SHIN k’he. The empire is (either, a “divine vase,” or) an object to be wrought out by (the Spirits) “Shin”; a “divine thing.” 9) ibid. (c. xxxix.). SHIN tih yih i ling; shing wo i ling, tsian k’hung hee: “The Spirits obtain unity through their ding) or ‘spiritual efficacy’? If Spirits had not that ‘ Ling,’ they would risk to perish.” 10) ibid. (c. lx.). When the Emperor rules according to the Taou, ke SHIN puh Shin; fei ke SHIN puh Shin; ke KWEI puh shang jin: “The Spirits do not exert their spiritual power; it is not that the Spirits are inactive; but it is because (Souls of the departed) evil Spirits do not hurt men.” 11) In the Shoo-king (book i. c. 1), Shun (n.c. 142 2356) is stated to have offered a sacrifice, first, yu SHANG TE, to “SuHana-Tr;” next to “Iuh-tsung,” the six objects of worship (the seasons, heat and cold, the sun, the moon, the stars and drought); he then turned devoutly towards the hills and the rivers; and last of all, “peen yu k’*heun SHIN” “ he looked all round on the host of Spirits” (Shin). 12) ibid. (c. 2). Speaking about music, Shun says; then, SHIN jin iho: “the Spirits and men are in harmony together.” | : 13) ibid. (c. 3). Yu is said to have been a man, shing nae SHIN, “holy and divine” (or, “ spiritual”). θεῖος καὶ δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ. 14) ibid. (ibid.). Yu said that even, KWEI-SHIN kee. ‘ The ‘ Souls-and-Spirits’ consented.” 15) ibid. (ibid.). “Shin tsung,” “ divine ancestor ;” and, “sincerity,” han SHIN “moves the Spirits.” 16) ibid. (book iii. 3). T’ang says, he had referred a grave matter to Shang-T’heen SHIN-how, “the divine officer (or power) of High Heayen,” or “ officer of ‘Sun’ of High-Heaven.” Unless “ Shin-how” mean “the Earth,” as Dr. Medhurst (1. c.) thinks. 17) ibid. (book iii. 7). E-yun says: KWEI-SHIN wo chang heang, heang yu k’hih she; “ The ‘ Souls- and-Spirits’ do not always accept an offering made to them; they only accept it from sufficiently sincere people.” ε ΘΝ 18) ibid. (book iii. 8). Héa is said to have been, man SHIN ngo ming, “remiss towards the Spirits, and cruel towards the people.” Consequently, Hwang- ΤΕΣ ΟῚ ore 148 Theen, looked for some one else, to set him to’ be SHIN-CHOO chief (or Lord) over the (worship of ) Spirits (or gods). 19) ibid. (book iii. 13). When a man has con- tracted defilement, it is difficult for him, sze SHIN, “to serve the Spirits.” 20) ibid. (book vy. 7). The kings of Chow alone did teen SHIN T’HEEN, “institute the worship of divine Heaven.” | 21) In the Kan-ing-Pien (c. i.) we read: she i T’heen-Tih yew sze kwo-che SHIN, that there are in Heaven and on Earth, Spirits who (Mandch. bait- chara, “search out”) look after the transgressions of men. There is also— 22) SHIN-KIUN tsae jin-too-shang “the Prince of Spirits,” who is placed over the head of men; who writes in a book all their sins, etc. 23) There are also san SHE-SHIN tsae jin-shen chung; ‘the three Spirits of the corpse, placed in the interior of man (viz. the head, the stomach, and the intestines), who ascend to Heaven when a man dies, in order to testify against him. And the last day of the lunar month, TSA-SHIN ju yan; ‘“‘the Spirit of the hearth” (comp. “ Lares, and Penates’’), the “ fami- liar Spirit does the same.” Among the sins of men reported on high by those Spirits (Shin) are, ma SHIN ch’hing tsae, “ to revile the Spirits, and yet to be satisfied one is upright”; and yin SHIN-MING, to call down the brightness of the Spirits on one’s own wicked conduct. 144 24) ibid. (ad fin.). We read: “If your heart conceive a good thought, ere you have acted upon it; KEIH-SHIN i suy, the Spirits of happiness follow you.” If, on the other hand, your heart’ conceive evil, although that evil remain as yet undone, HEUNG-SHIN i suy che, (Mand. ehe Enduri takhambi,) “evil Spirits of destruction press hard upon tte thought.” 25) In the Le-Ke, c. i. we read: “ Taou tsze tse ke kung keih KWEI-SHIN, fei le; puh-ching, puh-chwang.” “without rites, there can be nothing either sincere or solemn in the prayers, the offerings, the sacrifices, or the oblations made to the ‘ Souls-and-Spirits.’ ” A hint that may be useful to some that are not Chi- nese. 26) ibid., c. viii. “ Le pei pen ju T’heen, heaou ju Tih; lee ju KWEI-SHIN,” etc. “Rites (or duties) own their origin from Heaven, and they have their appli- cation upon earth; they relate to the ‘ Souls-and- Spirits,’ ” ete. 27. ibid. The holy man (or excellent prince) iden- tifies himself with Heaven and Earth, “ ping ju KWEI- SHIN, i chi king yay”; and ‘ with the ‘ Souls-and- Spirits,’ in order to govern properly.” 28) ibid. “Jin-chay, ke T’heen-Tih-che, Yin-Yang-cho keaou, KWEI-SHIN-che hwuy,” etc. “ As regards man, his existence results from the virtue of Heaven and Earth ; from the combination of ‘ Yin” (principle of obscurity and decay), and ‘ Yang’ (principle of light and life); and from the blending of ‘kwei’ (the 145 zs ghost of a dead man, manes) and ‘SHIN? (the Spirit of that same man, when alive),” ete. 29) ibid. When an excellent prince wishes to set the example to his people, he ought, among other things, “ KWEI-SHIN i wei thoo,” “ to make the Spi- rits his companions.” Whereby “sze ko show yay”; “his acts will endure.” 30) ibid. The ancient kings fearing lest sacred rites should not become prevalent in the empire, “ koo tse TE ju keaou, so-i ching T’heen-le yay,” ‘offered a sacrifice to SHANG-Tr on open commons, in order to establish the power of Heaven” ;—then to the tutelary god of the empire;—next to their ancestors ;—and lastly, “ju shan ch’huen, so-i ping KWEI-SHIN,” to the hills and to the rivers, “so as to (worship) conciliate the ‘ Souls-and-Spirits.’ ” Therefore— 31) ibid. “Le-hing ju keaou eul pe SHIN show ehih yan,” ‘‘ by public worship in the open coun- try, the Spirits (gods) receive the homage due to them.” 32) “Foo-le peih pen ju Ta-yih; fan eul wei T’heen- Tih” “Those rites assuredly, derive their origin from the Ta-yih (the great principle of Unity). They are apportioned to Heaven and to the Earth”; they ‘vary according to the seasons; and lastly, “een ΘᾺ] * “wei KWEI-SHIN,” “ They undergo gradual modifica- tions for the ‘ Souls-and-Spirits.’ ” 33) When the empire is in harmony, then among other things, “‘sze KWEI-SHIN-che ch’hang yay,” “ the 11 : 146 worship (or things) relating to the ‘Souls-and-Spirits’ continues uninterrupted.” 34) ibid. c. ix., The wise man is at peace with himself and with others, and “ KWEI-SHIN heang te,” the Souls-and-Spirits feast on his virtue.” 35) ibid. ibid. The rites must, “chun ju kwei- SHIN,” “accord with the Souls-and-Spirits.” 36) “Shay tseih shan ch’huen che sze KWEI-SHIN- che tse le yay.” “ Rites consist in the things relating to the tutelary god, to the god of harvest, to the hills, to the rivers, and to the worship of the Souls-and- Spirits.” ; 37) “Shay so-i SHIN-Tih yay.’ ‘“ The worship of the tutelary god tends to connect the earth with the Spirits.” 38) The offerings made in sacred vessels, consist of the produce of the soil, “so-i keaou ju SHIN-MING che e yay,” “so as to place yourself on good terms with the Spirits” or “ divine brightness”; and “so-i keaou ju SHIN-MING chay, puh ko tung ju so gan see che shin yay,” “to hold intercourse with the Spirits, or ‘di- vine brightness,’ is very different from seeking one’s own ease and treating them negligently.” 39) ibid. ibid. The ox to be offered to Suane-Tx, is to undergo a certain process of purification ; but any ox may do for an offering to deceased ancestors ; thereby, “pee sze T’HEEN-SHIN yu jin-kwei yay,” “making a difference between rites relating to the ‘ spirits,’ (gods, or deities) of Heaven and the ‘souls’ of men.” 147 ες 40) ibid. c. xvi. “ Music,” says the Le-ke, “ tends to calm the mind, and then things go on easy; that tends to long duration,” or, (to the raising of one’s mind upwards); “keaou tseih T’heen; T’heen tseih SHIN; T’heen tseih puh yen eul sin; SHIN tseih puh noo Θὰ] weih,” “and that leads to Heaven; then Heaven to (Shin) the gods. Though Heaven speak not, yet men believe in it; and though (Shin) the gods be not angry, they are nevertheless revered.” 41) ibid. c. xx., “king tsin jan how ko-i sze SHIN- ming sse tse-che-taou yay.” ‘“‘ When veneration is com- plete, then a man may do service to the brightness of (Shin) the gods; such is the rule of sacrifices.” 42) ibid. ib. “ The wise man practises abstinence three or seven days; for the purpose of collecting his thoughts. It is the road to the brightest virtue.” “Jan how ke-i keaou ju SHIN-MING yay.” “ When aman is thus prepared, he may hold intercourse with the brightness of the (Shin) gods.” 43) ibid. 6. xxvi., Siao-ia says: “ Do your duty, appoint fit men to their respective offices,” and, “ She yu SHIN-che shing-che,” “that will make the gods hear you, and crown you with blessings,” etc. So far, the examples in “ Koo-wén,” drawn from ancient classics within our reach. We will now see what meaning “ Suin” has in more modern classical literature ; as well as in colloquial intercourse among educated men. The only book of the kind in our possession is the “* Hwa-tseen,” written by one of the Thsai-tsze, 148 and reckoned, in China, a master-piece of its kind. ‘“Snin” occurs in it twenty-seven times; and is used also, we expect, in its actual acceptation in pure Chinese. | 3 44) In Hwa-tseen (p. 30, 1. 8, ed. P. P. Thoms) we read: “tso seaou SHIN-NIU wang ho sung?” “ Whither has gone the divine maid of yester-eve ?” 45) ibid. p. 41, 1. 8, Same expression. Compare it with — 46) ibid. p. 62, 1. 7, where that. person, Yaou-seen, is said to be, “ T’heen-shang niu,” “a daughter fostered by Heaven” (“ θεῶν παίδευμα". --“ Οὐρανοῦ θυγάτηρ". - “duhitar DIVA:”); and with the Persian sj usp —“born of a Pari” for, a “beautiful woman.” This corresponds with “ SHIN-SEEN” in — 47) ibid. p. 42,1. 13, “ Fung-kwang puh jang SHIN- SEEN foo.” That hill “ will not yield, in freshness and beauty, to the abode of the (Shin-seen) Genii of the hills”—(who are not considered as “ gods.” See also, p. 79, 1.2). Or, this passage may be construed differently if ““Shin-seen” is made, as in — 48) p. 62, 1. 16; and p. 79, 1. 16, to apply to Yaou-seen;” and to mean “a fairy;” heard of yet unseen, in Persia: for even Sadi says in a parallel “passage. “Among men the like of thee G52 Ogi ~ Sve poss perhaps never did exist. But I have not seen a Pari.” | - 49) ibid. p. 47,1. 4, ““ HWA-SHIN, Seng sze 186 heen-log.” “ The. god of flowers produces colours to 149 gratify (or benefit) virtuous youths.” (See also the same expression at p. 170, 1. 14; and p. 176, 1.14.) ° | 50) ibid. p. 108, 1. 14, “She chang Phung seay kaou chi SHIN.” Leang “wrote a vow of constancy, and made it known to the gods.” (See p. 109, I. 12; and pe 125.:19}. 4 51) ibid. Ὁ. 110, 1. 5, Three sticks of fragrant wood were offered to “ YUE-SHIN,” “the goddess of wie Moon” (and p. 111, 1. 10). 52) ibid. p. 118, 1.14, “SHIN-TSEEN”” “ The god of the tablet.” 53) ibid. p. 223, 1. 2, “Sse wang heu-k’*hung SHIN- kwei chi’ “ He told the gods -(Souls-and-Spirits) ‘of the four quarters of Heaven.” (See also p. 242, 12, where we read, “ kwei-Shin,” ‘‘ Souls-and-Spirits.” ) 54) ibid. p. 124, 1. 8, “ Paou chung tseen ch’hing mo ch’hang SHIN.” ““ Promise again, ere you start, not (to keep up) sorrowful spirits.” And p. 133, 1. 1, “ Shang-SHIN,” “ wounded spirits.” 55) ibid. p. 156, 1. 6, “Na te sin SHIN seih wen?” “‘ Where shall I find ‘heart-spirits’ to follow my stu- dies ?”—* Sang sin-SHIN,” “ mournful heart-spirits.” (See p. 146, 1. 4; and p. 143, 1. 5.) 56) ibid. p, 152, 1. 12, “ Yen meen pei-gae ke sang- SHIN.” “ She veiled her face, and from grief began to be in mournful spirits.” (See also p. 172, 1. 14; and p. 194, 1. 12.) : 57) ibid. p. 186, 1. 7, Yaou-seen while listening to what occurred, “SHIN-hwan sang,” “ her whole spirits grew (mournful) sad.” 150 58) In the Tching-yen tso-yaou, p. 3, 1. 5, we read: “Pa chay shen kin-kwuh; hwo-tung, hwo-tung: Jin yeou yew tsing-SHIN.” ‘“ Take this body of bone and muscle ; exercise it well, exercise it well; that is the way for a man to get good spirits.” 59) Premare (Not. Ling. Sin. p. 189) quotes the proverb : “Jin laou wo neng: SHIN laou wo ling.” “A man grown old has no power ; a spirit grown old has no spiritual efficacy,”—or “ active energy.” This proverb is illustrated in a characteristic dialogue, in — | 60) A..Gongalvez, Arte China, p. 299, seg., where we read of “ MUH-SHIN,” “the spirits of the door” of the temple; and that the “MEAOU-SHIN mo yew ling,” “the (Temple-Spirit) idol had no soul,” (did no wonders) and so says the interlocutor, “I would not go there again”; and alittle further, ““SHIN-choo pae- tsze leay tih ling-wei, SHIN-wei, shi-mo pae-shwo’’? “What is the meaning of this inscription, ‘the seat of the soul, the seat of the Spirit, which is on the tablet of the Ruling Spirit.’” (See also p. 290, “king-tae-SHIN,” “to honour the (Shin) god of wealth,” etc. The above quotations, all taken from classical or approved authors, show, generally, that the literal meaning of SHIN is— a) “An expansion” of “she,” which denotes, evidently, not so much “light from Heaven,” ete. (according to Dr. Morrison’s definition), as “ genii” 151 or ‘demons,’ according to his own opinion (p. 804, vol. i. of his Dict.), and to Kang-he’s Dictionary. 6) That “Sun,” like 4 “genii” in Arabic, is a “collective noun,” which, when alone, and without a numerical affix to determine its number (like “ one,” “two,” etc.), does not imply less than an “ indefinite number” ;—sometimes a “multitude spread every- where,” and ‘“ innumerable.” 6) That “Surin” never occurs in the Chinese classics with such a numerical affix;—that conse- quently it never means “ one SHIN.” d) That “ Sain” (when coupled with “kwei,” “ the souls of the departed”) is taken for “An-i gengiyen fergouetchoun-be,” “‘the supernatural and bright por- tion of the Yang principle ”—“ Spirits,” what there is of “ good and spiritual” in the world. 6) That even in the best acceptation, “ Sain” is sometimes good and sometimes bad ; jf) sometimes male or female ;—and that those Spirits are— g) liable to lose their spiritual efficacy, “ Ling.” h) That those Spirits (Shin) hold an inferior posi- tion in the scale of deities ; _ 4) That some of them are not considered as “ gods.” j) Lastly, that Sum is, mere “ animal Spirits.” 152 We must therefore conclude, that the impression made by the term “SHIN” upon the mind of an educated Chinese, who looks. upon most of the above- quoted classics as inspired, must be, like the term itself, vague and indefinite. It is hardly one Spirit out of k’heang Shin, a host of other Spirits his fel- lows ;—an inferior deity of some sort or other ;—but it may be the whole host itself, an aggregate of inferior deities ;—apparently something; and, in fact, nothing. There is no one point whereupon to rest or fix the mind; and if you try and clench “ one Spirit,” SHIN, in thought, for aught you know, he may, as we have seen, turn out an old one, who has lost his life and his intelligence! While, to the uneducated, who form by far the greater portion of a people, whose religion consists almost altogether in rites and ceremonies, SHIN conveys no higher or more elevated idea than that of a deformed idol; with a licentious, or, at best, an unmeaning worship. 7 This ill-defined impression left on . the an by the term SHIN, is owing, not only to the vagueness of the idea conveyed by that term, but also, and in a great degree, to the fact, that in classical Chinese there is neither article to define, nor case to deter- mine, nor gender to qualify, nor any sign of number to limit a term, which may often be read either as a collective, singular or plural noun, an adjective, a verb, or even a particle. Under these circumstances inherent in the Chinese language, it must strike every one as of the highest Se - importanee that, in order to express “ Gop” in Chi- nese, we should find a term, which, having always been taken in one sense only, is liable neither to an ambiguous meaning, nor to be practically misapplied by the people. We confess ourselves, therefore, at a loss to understand how, in the face of even the few examples we have adduced, there can still exist so great a difference of opinion on the subject; if, as the writer of “ Shin v. Shang-Te” asserts, the advocates of SHIN “have gone thoroughly into the question,” by inquiring into the meaning of the original terms; and “ have rightly understood it,” by searching the Chinese classics for an equivalent, with unprejudiced minds. But, as Pindar says (Ol: viii.),— . Ὀρθᾷ διακρίνειν φρενὶ, μὴ παρὰ καιρὸν, ΖΔυσπαλές-.--- ΙΧ. We leave the candid reader to draw his own con- élusion from the above authorities, which are im- partially given. For our own part, having seen no other writing on the subject than the pamphlet in question, we can only speculate as to the considera- tions which have led the advocates of “ Sum” to enter into so close a covenant with that term. If one of their reasons is, first—that “ Sun” being a “ generie term,” which in Chinese, is in a way, applied to “ all gods,” it is therefore appropriate and fit to express Exrontm and Θεός, they seem to over- 154 look the fact, that @ecoé” are neither Θεός nor 6 Θεός, ς and that because Ζεύς is called “6 πρῶτος δαίμων," ib does not follow that δαίμων is Ζεύς. Or that, because Κρόνος is called Θεός, Θεός is for that reason Κρόνος also. Nor yet that likewise, because “ Ba’al-zebub” is ἢν ΤΌΝ (Elohim) the God of Ekron,” BYIDS “Elohim” is therefore a fit name for “Gop.” For in this case it is exactly the reverse: the name of “the true Gop” alone, ELonim, was lowered from His “excellent greatness,” and applied to “an idol”; and it was not the name of the “idol” that was raised to mean “the true Gop.” This, however, is precisely what must take place in China, and in every other heathen land. Suzy, then, is not an appropriate term for Gop, because it sometimes means ‘a god.” For, as we shall presently see, ‘‘ Suin” is, perhaps, “ δαίμων, OF “ τὸ δαιμόνιον," and as “ δαίμων" it may sometimes apply to one who is “ Θεός, like Suane= ΤΕ : but who would say that for all that, Θεός and δαίμων are one? It cannot be, secondly—that the idea of plurality inherent in the collective noun Su (Spirits) can correspond to the same idea as implied in the plural “ ELoum.” We have already seen that this plural is only a mark of dignity, or of profound respect for that dignity. For the sake of argument, however, let it be granted that it implies “ plurality.” Of what kind?— Not, assuredly, the necessary doctrine of the Trinity, which cannot be gathered from “ Exon” alone; if so, then, it can be no doctrine of any practical import- 155 . ance. The “plural” implied or expressed in Etoum, cannot be of “two”; since there is a “dual” in Hebrew to express that number. But it may mean “any number”; and therefore it proves too much. For three is the number to be established. Since then, the number three cannot be determined from “Eronm,” this “plural” form if taken to imply “multitude” and not “respect” only, may (accord- ing to Aben-Ezra, Rabbi ὃ. Jarchi, the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Arabic, and the Samaritan versions) often mean “Ἢ Angels,” pndy ‘J2—“ sons of God,” the Host of the Heavenly ministers of God’s will around His throne on high. (See R. 8. Jarchi on Gen. i. 26.) If therefore “‘ Sutn” is used for ““ Etontm,” because SHIN implies “a plurality,” like Exonm, what does it then mean, for a Chinese who, ¢.g., reads in the Bible, “ THEEN-SHIN,” “ The God of Heaven”? It cannot possibly convey to him any higher or more distinct idea than those very words do in, 6. g., Le-ke (ce. Xvi.), where T7HEEN tsei SHIN applies to the Deity in Heaven, 2. ¢., to SHANG-TE, surrounded as he is by his ministers and their numerous attendants. Now, do the advocates of “ Sumy,” in worshipping “ Gop,” include the ““ Heavenly Host” in their worship? If not, why do they lead the Chinese to do it? For it is, we see, inevitable. So little, in point of fact, does “" Sam” express ‘“‘ Exonm” in this case, that being divested of its primary and classical collective sense of “ Spirits” by . 1586 the translators who advocate ‘“Suin,” in order to make it mean One Spirit only, whenever Exonm governs a verb in the plural (as in Gen. i. 26), ‘“‘ Sain” must be qualified by adjuncts, which only add to the perplexity of its meaning. While, in other places, where Exoumm in the original is also construed with a plural verb (as, 6. g., Gen. xx. 13; xxxy. 7, etc.), the plural of the original is left out altogether in the Chinese translation; and both Sax and its verb are then intended to remain in the singular! _ And, thirdly,—if it be alleged that, since Sum means “ Spirits,” and “God is a Spirit,” Sum is therefore an appropriate term for ‘‘ God,” that ap- pears to us, either begging the question, or blinking it altogether. Since it is evident that the reason that ἐς God is a Spirit,” is also the very reason why Sain, ‘t Spirits,” should ot be chosen to render “ Gop” into Chinese. For, although we believe, as taught by our Saviour Himself, whose words ‘“‘ were Spirit and Life,” that “Gop Is A Spirit,” whom we humbly*seek to “serve in spirit and in truth,” while we ‘“ walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit,” and ‘through the Spirit” endeavour “ to mortify the deeds of the body;” yet ‘we cannot overlook the fact that, as Gop was to be worshipped by mortal men of limited minds, He, in mercy to their infirmity, did not introduce Himself to them as ‘a Spirit,” indefinite and. inappreciable, which no human mind can rightly understand or fully grasp. 157 - But He made Himself known to His people, by speaking of Himself, at first, as of “a Person,” ὑπό- στασις, figuratively “ endowed” with a “Spirit” ema- nating from Him ; and with active energies compared to those of men. Without some such definite “ out- line” or “ idea” of Gop, His own people even, much less others, could not have continued faithful to Him. For we find that, even immediately after having trembled at His voice speaking from Sinai, they could not abide forty days without some fresh token of His presence among them; and so they bade Aaron make them “ gods” whom they might see, and who would ** ρῸ before them.” Gop, then, out of compassion to men, makes Him- self known to them in characters which address themselves at once to the mind, and make it fast; although that same mind may not be able to under- stand fully the spiritual nature of Him whose attri- butes, however, it embraces at once. For instance, we readily seize the meaning of God’s words, when He introduces Himself as “ our Father” . —*T am thy Father”—*“ the Father of the spirits of all flesh;”—as “ king”—‘“a king of old”—‘ the Lord is king! and reigns over His people ;’—-as Master, to whom alone “we stand or fall;”—as a Judge, “who shall judge the righteous and the wicked ;”—as a mighty man of war—dpes—‘‘ who shall prevail against: his enemies ;”’—as a ‘“ defender” —a “sure refuge”’—a “strength to the poor;”—a ~efuge from the storm ;—a ‘“ shadow from the heat ;’ 158 as the Father of the fatherless;—as one who hears all things; who sees all things;—who points with His finger, and commands by the word of His mouth; —who makes the clouds His chariot ;—whose throne is in Heaven, “ His holy habitation : and whose feet rest upon the earth;—who is “ high and lofty,” yet “ pardoning and gracious;’—for “ He dwelleth with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, and that trembleth at His word.” All those are expressions of “ personal,’ and not of exclusively “ spiritual” attributes. They are, for that reason, admitted and seized at once; and thus they are able to sway the mind, and to hold the heart captive. It is evident that it would not be the case if a “ Spirit,” and “ spiritual” attributes only, and not “a person,” were to be thought of. So uniform is God’s dealing with men, in this re- spect, that it was not until four thousand years after He had first created man, that “‘ Gop manifest in the flesh” taught men in plain terms that ‘“ Gop is a Spreit.” Till then, and even after that time, ‘ The Spirit,” though He be Gop, is yet mentioned as “ of” Him; as an emanation from Him, and not as Him- self. In the very outset, and after it had been de- clared that “ Gop had created the Heavens and the Earth,” we further read, that the “Spirit of Gop moved upon the face of the waters;” not “ Gon,” though that Spirit was Gop, but His Spirit. “ Whi- ther shall I go from Thy Spirit?” says the Psalmist. “ The Spirit of Gop hath made me,” says Job, “ and 159 the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” The “ Spirit of Gop dwelleth in you,” says St. Paul; “ orieve not the Holy Spirit of Gop;”—‘ for the Spirit of Gop resteth on you,” etc. How can all those attributes be assigned to Sum, which to a Chinese conveys no other idea than that of hardly one inferior “ Spirit”—may be, decrepit, and bereft of intelligence ? one out of a multitude of other Spirits, his equals, but, rather that multitude itself,—without creating endless confusion in his al- ready bewildered mind? How, for instance, can we be understood, when speaking of the hands, the feet, ' the eyes, the mouth of Sutn, exeept it be of Sun as an “idol of wood or stone?” And how shall we explain (if we understand it ourselves), what the “Spirit” of “ The Spirit” (Sumy) can possibly mean? True, we might try the experiment of using “ Ling,” for the “‘ Spirit inhabiting the other,” as Dr. Morri- son has done; and this would seem borne out by the passage of Lao-tsze above quoted. But, at that very place, Lao-tsze implies that the “Sum” Spirit may be deprived of “ Ling,” his “ Spirit;” and then either lose his unity (Lao-tsze 1. ¢.), or, as it is commonly said in China, become “ effete from old age!” What a substitute for the name of our Gop, the Micury, the Most-Hieu, the Krye or Grory, who inhabits eternity, and to whose “ kingdom there shall be no end!” And what impression of these upholding truths can a Chinese receive through such a medium as SHIN? 160 The fault, it must be seen, lies in the term Sumy itself; between which term, and the personal attri- butes assigned to it, there is little or no congruity. For the most impressive and endearing prerogatives of God in Holy Scripture could never have been. pre- dicated of a “Spirit” only, without risk of either creating great confusion of ideas, or, perhaps, im- parting no idea at all. And it is not, let us remem- ber, by mere coincidence that the ‘‘ God.” revealed in the Bible is a “personal” God. It was. so willed by Him, not only out of condescension towards. us, but also as a preparation for the coming “in person” of the ‘ WonpERFUL, CounsELLER, Tue Micuty Gon, Tue Everiastineg Fatuer, Toe Prince or PEace;” “who is the image of the invisible GOD ;”—“ the express image of HIS PERSON ;” and in whom the mystery was to be solved of “‘ God manifest. in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into Glory.” So patent, indeed, is the fact, that Gop being a εἰ ἘΡΕΡΔΟΝ God,” is not to be considered abstractedly ‘a Spirit only;” that the names by which He is walled in’ the world in general, and in the ancient versions of Scripture in particular, are all expressive of “power,” “ might,” “ excellence,” or of “ glory,” but never of “ Spiritual” essence alone. Gop is called in Hebrew by, Et, the “ Mighty;” or ody, the “ awful God.” Why, then, since “ God is a Spirit,” was He not called M197, “ The Spirit” aaa (as in Hos. ix. 7), as patronymic for “ the Spirits of all flesh,” of which He is “ Father”? In Chaldee and in Syriac, Gop is sometimes called ἈΕΟΠΊ, “the object of fear,” (as in Hebrew also, M2, ες terror,”) why not δ 7), “ The Spirit”? . Τὴ Samaritan He is known as 42m, “the Valiant one,” why not as x«mra, “ The Spirit”? In Arabic, Gop is spoken of in the Bible as GLO! jo! all,* “Gop the Mighty, the Sufficient” ; why not as (wi! οἷ, “the Father of Spirits or of Souls” ? ih ) * Borhan-ed-deen says of the term all, “Gop,” that itis oS) Cots oll pul, “a name of the Essence which does of necessity exist.” In this sense, it would seem to answer to MM’. Among the Arabs, Gop has ninety-nine names; on which Shahab- ed-deen Abulabas remarks that they are 4] wisi aN) gay lal SI pay mud ρων ad “divided into three classes.” The first class relates to the “ Essence” of God; and is contained in ait, ( El- Inuan,” etc. (See H. Relandi, de R. Moham. p. 6, 19, and Coran Sur. xvi. 109, \scol on which see the note in Maracci’s edition, Shia SV Ngcotl 4! alt, where it is stated that the Arabs add a hundredth name to the above ninety-nine; namely, pet rie “the Greatest Name”; is it WENN DY τὸ τετρωγράμ- ματον, M1?) 12 162 In Ethiopic the name for God, A*\n “ Amlak,” is, as we have seen, derived from “rule and govern- ment”; for God is, as Seberianus writes (Homil. on” Faith), U's ἴεν Ὧι £ Xp diay frun Cuwqgurnp ng "h Tnfiss ung juin_us gure gts “επί » bk ns *h Sut ΓΟ ΟΣ] κεν lense τ ἐμέκ ει + “the one only and true King, neither foremost among others like Him; nor in appearance more noble among ~ equals,’—-why was He not called in Ethiopic, e447 “ Manfas,” “ The Spirit”? or, as in the book of Enoch, ΛΊΗΝ: σφ: “ Yg’zia Manafyst,” “ the Lord of the Spirits?” In the Armenian version God is called ULassnrw’-, ἐς Asdwadz”—probably “ Astvat” (Sansc. “ San”), a term brought from the southern plains of Ariyana, and which in Zend, means “ the existing Being, Jehovah” (see Yacna Not. p. 11). Why was He not called ¢nqgf, “ Hoki,’ Spirit; a term for the third person of His Most Holy Triune Essence ? The Georgian, “ Ghmerth,” Ghut, or “ Ghuti,” is, as we have seen, the wide-spread name for God, tas, “ khuda,” self-existing (comp. the Zend “ qad’hata,” “ uncreated, self-existing”) from whence is probably “ Guth,”* adopted by Ulphilas in his version. Why, * “Guth,” “ God,” is more likely to come from “ Khuda,” “ Ghut,” and ‘ Qadata,’ than from “Odin,” “ Wod,” or ‘‘ Wadda”: (Buddha), mentioned by Abulfeda, as worshipped by Noah’s countrymen : 163 then, was not God called in Georgian “ Souli,” (Soul), “ Spirit,” and in Gothic, ‘“ Ahnia,” also “ Spirit?” especially since Bhagavan, says of himself :— Aham Atma sarvab’hutashayast’hita: | “T am the Spirit (Atma, in Gothic, “ Ahma”) dwelling in the bodies of all beings.” (Comp. “ SHIN ?he-wuh”—* SHIN,” that enters into the essence of things. Ch.-Yung. c. xvi.) The word chosen to render God in the Coptic version is, as we have seen, ot, the ancient nrp, or ne, with the article n or ,—still graven deep on the granite pillars*erected in memory of Rameses- Mei-Amoun, at Thebes. Why was not the word miqi, “breath,” or “ Spirit,” rather adopted to render “God,” since we read in Coptic, that all Scripture is nuiqi NTe ht, “ the breath,” or “ inspiration of God”? The Slavonian version has “ Bogh,” originally, perhaps, like Eronm, meaning “a worshipful Being ;” why was not the word “ Duch,” “ Spirit,” adopted instead ? Lastly, we have seen that Θεός has in itself no- thing in common with “ Spirit,” since it first meant the “Sun,” or “ Heaven;”* how then, is it, that it lay yd, AGI yds J NYGy—(Hist. ante Isl. p. 14, ed. Fl.) See above, p. 52. * The origin of Θεός -- Ζεύς, from the root Div, Div-s, or DIv,—“ Brilliancy,” ‘ Sun,” and “ Hea- 164 was adopted to express “ God,” and that Πνεῦμα, or rather Aaiwov, was not used in its place? The reason is obvious. Because a knowledge of the true God was to be imparted through ideas intelligible to men of simple minds; for “to the poor the Gospel is preached.” They never could hold only by the in- tellectual worship of a “ Spirit” as “‘ Spirit only,” which they could not possibly understand, apart from his “ personal attributes;” nor could they pledge their allegiance to any but to a “ personal God.” Nay, we see that even Plato (De Leg. L. x.), after having discoursed to the admiration of all, on the ἐς παντοῖα Σοφία καὶ Νοῦς," inseparable from the “ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου" in God, seeks in Heaven One to whom he may assign that divine Soul. Then, turning his eyes from the Sun, and his hope from his indefinite and _ uncertain Θεός and Θεοί, he fixes upon his own per- sonal God, and bows at last to the ruling wisdom, mind, and soul, of Ζεὺς βασιλεύς. ven,”—is further shown by the fact of Ζεύς being pronounced either Zyus (diu-s), or, as in Modern Greek Zevs (div-s); acc. either Ζεύν, Θεύν, Δεύν, “deum,” as from the Vaidic diu; or dia, “ devm,” from divam. 165 X. Why, then, should the Chinese, who suffer already sufficiently from the peculiarities of their ill-defined language, be precisely the one people of all the earth, on which the most ambiguous, and, perhaps, the least appropriate term for “ God,” is to be forced against, may be, their wishes, and certainly, against the ge- nius of their own tongue, and the evidence of their senses? Even if Confucius could have unravelled the mysterious import of SHIN wei Ling, for “God is a Spirit” (St. John iv. 24), or SHIN-CHE shing-fung, “the Holy-wind of (SHIN) Spirits” for “the Holy Spirit of God,” etc., what would he have said when reading of SHIN-che tsze, “the Son of the Spirits” (SHIN)? He would have exclaimed, “Wo ming, wo ming ee!” “ It is not clear, it is not indeed!” And pointing to the most ancient records of the kingdom, traced in his own hands, he would have asked: ‘“ Can you possibly mean ‘Hwang T’héen SHANG-TE yuen tsze,’ the first begotten of the Supreme Ruler in the Imperial-Heavens ?’ (Shoo-king, v. 1.) For the Chinese, like every other nation under Heaven, have worshipped “one personal God, as Supreme over all.” Already, in the days of Yaou (B.c. c.c. 2300), SHANG-TE had long been adored as 166 alone Supreme over all things in Heaven and Earth. His immediate attendants are, it appears (Kan-ing- P. I. p. 11, ed. St. Jul.), five heavenly chiefs, members — also of his council, who are set over the presidents of Heaven, of the Earth, and of the Sea: These, in turn, range in the world of “ SHIN,” or “ Spirits of the air;” of “kwei,’ “ souls of the deceased;” and “ke,” “Spirits of, or, from below, the Earth.”— For, “ ἑνὰ ἴδοις ἂν ἐν πάσῃ γῇ," says Max. Tyrius, (Aoy. a Pp: 3), ὁμόφωνον νόμον καὶ λόγον, ὅτι Θεὸς els πάντων βασιλεὺς καὶ πατὴρ, καὶ θεοὶ πολλοὶ, θεοῦ παῖδες, συν- άρχοντες Θεῷ. Ταῦτα καὶ ὁ “Ἕλλην λέγει, καὶ ὁ Βάρβαρος λέγει----καὶ 6 σόφος, καὶ ὁ ἄσοφος.᾽" But, over all those, and in Hwang-T’heen, the * Supreme,” or * Imperial Heavens,” One “TE” ἘΠῚ Ruler, is, ‘ Shang,” + higher than all. He is SHANG-TE, “Apka-i dergi ugheri dalikha edjen-i tergiy- embi,” as the Mandchou Dict. explains it, “‘ The majesty of the unseen Lord and Governor of Heaven;” known to the children of Israel as troy MM, “6 Ὕψιστος," “trbédov,” and to us as “the Lorp Most-Hien” (Psalm xlviii. 2). He is “the unknown God,” they ignorantly worship, whom “ we declare unto them;” and whom we must teach them rightly to worship as the only true God, “in whom we live, and move, and have our being.” His name, which is “exalted over all,” implies his office and his prero- gatives. He is, as we shall see, Father, Lord, and King or Governor supreme; and He alone is adored as such. : 167 The first mention of SHANG-TE (as far as we know, at least,) is made in the Canon of Yaou (8.6. 2300!). Lao-tsze speaks of him once; Mencius three times. And although Confucius mentions SHANG-TE but seldom (as he does SHIN) in his own writings, we have met with it thirty-eight times in the Shoo-king (the annals of the empire), compiled by Confucius himself from older documents; and in the Le-ke (or Chinese “ ritual”), SHANG-TE, like SHIN, occurs very frequently. Those works are held in the highest repute among the Chinese; we will therefore bring forward the most remarkable passages they contain in connection with this subject. 1) Shoo-king (book i. 11). Shun, as we have seen, offered sacrifices first, to Saanc-Tr, the Supreme Ruler, then to the inferior deities, and last of all to SHIN. 2) ibid. (book i. 5). Yu says to the Emperor: “ Show by your wisdom that’”—Show SHANG-Te, Theen ke Shin ming yung hew——“ you have received the government from Suanc-Tr; if Heaven should again make known his will, use it for the blessing of peace.” 2 3) ibid. (book iii. 1). T’ang (B.c. 1795) said to his people: “ The ruler of Ηδά has transgressed, but”—yu wei SHANG-TE, puh kan puh tchi—“ I fear SuAnc-Tx; I dare not, not set Héd to rights.” 4) ibid. (book iii. 7). T’ang further says: Wei hwang SHANG-TE heang chung yu hea-ming, jo yew hang Sing. “ It is Imperial SHanc-Te alone who im- 168 parts to these inferior people, their intrinsic goodness (or equity), which enables them to follow the dictates of nature.” | ? 5) ibid. (ibid.) ‘If I should do evil,” says T’ang, 1 will not hide it; I will”—-wei keen tsae SHANG- TE-che sin—“ only bring it into notice to the heart (mind) of ὅβηανα- ΤῈ." (‘I said: I will confess my sin unto the Lord,” etc.). 6) ibid. (book iii. 4). E said: SHANG-TE puh chang tso shen heang che pe tseang; tso puh shen, heang che peyang. ‘ SHane-TE is not always the same (in his dealings). To those who do good he vouchsafes a hundred blessings; while on those who do eyil, he sends down a hundred calamities.” (See also book iii. pp- 11, 12.) 7) ibid. (book iv. 1). ‘“ Suana-Tx” is “ πανυπέρ- τατος δαίμων," apart from “ Sum.” Woo-wang said of the tyrant Show: fei sze SHANG-TE, SHIN, ke. “ He serves neither ὅηλνα- ΤῈ, nor Sur (Spirits of the air) nor Ke (those of the Earth).” Show does not—k’hung Shang T’heen—‘“ honour Supreme Hea- ven,” and he has thus brought down calamities upon the people;—and (ib. 3), SHANG-TE fei shun chuh heang she sang— therefore, SHanc-TE has not been favourable to him, and has decided on sending down | the present season of mourning.” : 8) ibid. (book iv. 7). Woo-wang said, when marching against rebels: Yu siao-tsze, kan ke ch’hing SHANG-TE i go lwan leo. ‘“ I, a mean man, venture © respectfully to receive the order from Suanc-Tx, to 169 suppress revolutionary counsels. Only may you, Sun (gods), be able to help me, in saving my peo- ple, and, wo tso SHIN sew, do not injure the credit of Sur.” 9) ibid. (book iv. 9). Woo-wang prospered by following—SHANG-TE ming keue T’heen fe shin— the commands of ὅηλνα- ΤῈ, till Heaven aided his sincerity, and gave him victory (ib. book iy. 10). 10) ibid. (11.) Woo-wang said: “ When”—sHANG- TE wun, Tee T’heen nae ta ming wen wang—"' SHANG- ΤῈ heard (the pious wishes of the king), he (the Supreme Te) approved of it; and Heaven then gave full orders to Wen-wang,” etc. 11) ibid. (book v. 1). Imperial Heaven, Suanc- ΤῈ has changed—Hwang-T’heen SHANG-TE ke kew yuen tsze—(his decree) ‘in favour of his chief son” (the Emperor). 12) ibid. (bookv.3). SHANG-TE yin yih yew Hea puh shih yih; tseih wei TE heang ke. ‘ SHANG-TE leads by kindness; Hea however did not yield to mild measures; so that the Supreme Te sent down calamities upon him.” 13) ibid. (book v. 3). ‘ The kings of the Yin dynasty prospered, because they did not dare—shih TE ming puh p’hei T’heen—to oppose the will of SHane-Tr; but always acted in accordance with Heaven,” οἷο. ; otherwise SHANG-TE puh paou “ would not protect them,” etc. 14) ibid. (book v. 5). Good men like E-chih, 170 and Chin-hoo—kih yu SHANG-TE—influenced (the decrees) of SHanc-Tz (by their pious conduct). | 15) “ The sovereigns of Ηδά were wicked men, who—puh k’hih tsun ji k*heuen yu TE-che t/heih— were not able to encourage themselves for the space of one day to walk in the way of SHANG-Tx.” 16) ibid. (book v. 8). T’hang promoted SHANG- TE-che kang ming—‘ the glorious will of Suanc-Tx.” “‘ Such men—Tsun SHANG-TE, t’heih chi shin seun yu kew tih-che hing—obey Suanc-Tz, by following after knowledge and real sincerity in the practice of the nine virtues.” 17) ibid. (book vi. 8, 9). Smane-Tx is said not to have excused a fault, on account of which he cut off the generations of the people of Meaou. 18) Mencius (Shang-Mang, p. 13; pp. 25, 27, ed. St. J.) quotes the Shoo-king, to show that Heaven gives men their kings, etc.; and that these, tsoo SHANG-TE, assist Suanc-Tr to govern the world. He says also in Hea-mang (pp. 3, and 15), that, “a man, although ugly in appearance, if he restrain and purify himself—tseih ko i sze SHANG-TE—he may then bring offerings to SHane-Tx.” 19) Ching-tsze, in the Ta-Hio (c. x.) quotes the She-king, to show that ere the Emperors of the Yin dynasty had lost the heart of their people, they— k’hih p’hei SHANG-TE—were able to stand before (or, to associate) with Suane-Tr. 20) Confucius (Ch. Yung, ὁ. xix.) speaking of the ancient kings, Wou-Wang and Tcheou-Kung, 171 says, “that they worshipped Suanc-Tr, by offering the annual sacrifices of ‘ Kiao,” to Heaven, and that of ‘She, to the Earth.”* * It was in the Chung-Yung (c. xvi.), that we saw for the first time in classical Chinese the terms “ Sain,” and also “ Smane-Tx,” in this passage. We had before that seen “‘Suin” on the title-page of a New Testament, but we had never before met with “Suane-Tz.” Neither were we aware at that time, that any difference of opinion existed on the subject. It was not until last year that, while on a visit to the library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, for the purpose of making extracts from a MS., most liberally placed at our disposal by the Committee of that Society, we learned how much dissension had been created in China, by the relative merits of Sain and of SHane-Te, as substitutes for “Gop” in Holy Scripture. But we received no further information on the subject, until lately, when the pamphlet “Shin v. Shang-Te,” fell into our hands, Our impression on seeing “‘ Surn” for the first time in classical Chinese (c. xvi.) was: How can such a term be adopted for “Gop”? And when reading SHane-Te also for the first time in this passage, our spontaneous expression of surprise was: Why is not this term used instead of Sumy, in order to express “Gop”? We mention this, not that it can possibly matter 172 It was on this passage of the Chung-Yung, A. Ré- musat tells us (Tch.-young, not. p. 414), that the Jesuit missionaries framed a memorial, which they presented to the Emperor, Shing-tsou, in 1700, re- lative to T’nrrn, “ Heaven,” and to “Ssane-Tx.” This memorial was, we are told, approved by the Emperor, and by the first literati in the Empire, as agreeing with the doctrine of antiquity. It is writ- ten in Mandchou, and runs as follows :— ““Nenehe Ti-Wang-se gemu Apka-de tourolon-be yabuk- hangge, utkhai bit’hei ursei ‘ kiyao se-i’ tourolon; dergi Ti-be weilerengge seme henduhengge inu. Tuttu oren-i Pai-de Ti-seme arakhabi. Yasa-de sabure, arbun dursun bishere Apka-be wetchere, dchokderengge waka; cho- kome Apka-na tumen dchaka-i Edchen-Da-de wechere dchokderengge; olkoro ginggulere ten-de ishenara dcho- kode, gelhun-ako top-seme gisurerako; ‘ Dergi Apka,’ *Gosingha Apka,’ ‘Deserehe Apka,’ sehepi. Utkhai Ed- chenbe tukiyere-de, ‘Edchen’ serako, ‘ Terkin-fedchile,’ “ Dergiyamun’ seme hendure adali. Udu tukiyere gebu- lerengge adali ako bichibe.”’ “In adopting the ceremonies practised by the former emperors and kings, in their worship of Hea- ven,—ceremonies which have been called ‘ Kiao’ and to any one what our private opinion be, but only to show what was the first impression made on a mind ignorant of the subject and totally unprejudiced, by the terms Surin and Swana-Tx respectively, when found at their proper place. q 4 F' a ; 4 , ‘ 173 ‘Se’ by the learned, and are addressed to Shang-Te (for, as we know, the sepulchral tablet bears inscribed on it, ‘To Shang-Te the Supreme Ruler’); the sacri- fice is not offered to the material Heaven our eyes see; but to the real Lord of Heaven and Earth, and of all.things in them. Only, that, through fear and respect, and in awe of his majesty, men dare not call Him by his real name; but adopt the terms, ‘ Sub- lime Heaven,’ ‘ Benevolent Heaven,’ ‘Infinite Hea- ven.’ In like manner as, when addressing the Em- peror, we do not call him by his name; but we say, ‘beneath the steps, ‘your footstool,’ ‘supreme tri- bunal,’ etc. . Although the expressions of respect are not all alike, yet, in reality, they mean one and the same thing.” For, says the Le-ke (c. ix.), Ke TE yu kiaou king- che chih yay, “the sacrifice offered to SHane-Tr in the open country, is in token of the highest venera- tion.” XI. We again beg those of our readers, who have had patience to follow us thus far, to decide for them- selves, from the above passages, which of the two, “ Suin” or “ SHane-Tx,” should be chosen to render Sy “the Mighty,” or DON “the Awful,” and Θεός the “Supreme” Gop, into Chinese? We cannot, of 174 course, pretend to judge of the actual and practical influence of “ Sun” or “ SHane-TEz” on the Chinese multitude. We only judge from a few of the standard works, to which every educated Chinese may be referred and brought to book; and from which works the Chinese people affect to draw their religion. These classical works, then, are our starting-point, in common with the Chinese; and we ask, anxious as we are to learn, whether “‘ Gop” is to be rendered by “ Suzy,” which, by the showing of those standard authorities, expresses no “ person,” since it is a col- lective noun, but at best “ἃ Deity” of an inferior rank; by “ Surv,” which, on the testimony wrung from Dr. Morrison himself (Dict. vol. i. p. 184), seems “ to denote a sort of Spirits like the Roman genit or the Greek demons?” Or is not the “ Miauty Gop” to be expressed in Chinese by the “ One supreme personal God” they have, who, according to their notions, rules in Heaven (see San-kiao-huen-lew, pp. 9-20), surrounded by his ministers, over whom he is Lord? In like manner as we worship our own Gop, the Lorp or Hosts, who reigns and rules over the ministers of His will, over His Angels, and His Arch- angels, supreme. And let no one exclaim at this comparison. ΤῈ is only, “"Ayvworos Θεός".---Ζεύς “ ἐκ τοῦ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν᾽"---- “ τοῦτον ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν: ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσ- pov,” κιτιλ. It is, of course, comparing error with truth. But we, like our chief, St. Paul, ought also to try and discover in the error of others, every -175 approach to the truth we hold, and turn that to the best account, in favour of the truth, and not against it,—& Θεῷ ye μὰν τέλος. SHANG-TE is already, by their own showing, Father, Lord, Governor, and Judge, who rewards the good and punishes the wicked; who is touched by righteous deeds, and in- censed at evil ones. What remains for us to do? No more, but, at the same time, no less than what St. Paul did at Athens, and at Lystra. We have to declare to the inhabitants of China, that he ‘“ whom they thus ignorantly worship,” and not one of the innumerable spirits infinitely below hin, is, in fact, “the God who made the world and all things there- in”; seeing he is, as they believe already, “ Lord of Heaven and Earth.” For, why did the inspired Apostle, whose example we may safely follow, preach “ἄγνωστον Ocdv”— τὸν AIA, and not τὸ τεθρυλημένον * AAIMONION” of Socrates, which was as familiar as “Ζεύς to the audience on Mars’-hill, if ‘“‘ Sumy,” and not “ SHane- Tn,” be GOD? Because, as they now have in China, so alse at Athens and at Lystra, St. Paul’s hearers had fixed notions of their “ ἑνὸς θεοῦ βασιλεῶς καὶ matpos,”—Wwhereas, in the Middle-kingdom, as regards “« Sun,” in like manner as of old in Greece, “ περὶ μὲν δαιμόνων----ν ἐνταῦθα τὸ μὲν ὄνομα, δῆλον, ἡ δὲ οὐσία, ἀφανὴς, ἡ δὲ δύναμις, ἀμφισβητήσιμος." (Max. Tyr. λογ. a.) But, as we see that the Athenians accepted at once the personal attributes of Ζεύς, announced by St. Paul, so also will the people of China more rea- 176 dily, and also more easily, receive, how “ Suane-Tx,” their “ personal,” though “invisible” Supreme God, who is in “‘ Hwang-T’heen,” Imperial Heaven, can be their Creator, their Maker, their Preserver, their Deliverer, their refuge in time of trouble. And they will learn to consider him no longer as they have always done, in the light of “a Lord,” or of “a Father” only; when they, like Aquila at Athens, know Him as “their FATHER who is in Heaven, through His Son Jusus Curist their Saviour, who is One with Him and His Horny Spirit, Gop blessed for ever. Amen!” But, we think, we may affirm, if it were only from the examples brought forward, that the Chinese never can or will believe all that of “ Sun,” who is “7d Aacpoveor,” perhaps “ Δαίμων," and not “ Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ." However zealous and well-meaning Missionaries in China may be, they must be sensible of the fact, that they can not coin a new system of their own, and force it upon the people, as if these had never before had any idea of “ὁ Deity.” Preachers of the Gospel there, have to deal with a teeming population of sharp, clever, intelligent, sceptical, not naturally devout or religious, but often very learned men, who can claim a national individuality of more than four thousand years; and they have to teach those people through the medium of words in the language, that have become old and hoary in their own intrinsic meaning. This, of course, can not be changed at once to suit a particular purpose. We ought not, 177 therefore, to delude ourselves so far, as to suppose that the people of China will, as a matter of course, bow to a few scattered emissaries, of a more florid complexion, perhaps, but still from foreign, and, therefore, despised nations. For amissionary “‘ mixes” among the people; he does not “blend” with them. To the Brahman, proud of his archaic ancestry, the missionary is “ Mlechch’ha,” ‘a babbler,” who speaks a jargon, and not his own sacred idiom, the melli- fluous Sanscrit. To the supercilious Chinese, he is “ Fan-kwei,” a “ foreign devil,” or, at least, “ Wai-jin,” “ βάρβαρος, “a ‘man’ from without,” who (Ming- hien-dsi, p. 5) “is held cheap, although a ‘thing’ from afar may fetch a high price.” This inferior position is especially felt when those messengers do not present a united and well-trained company, under one head, and acting in one spirit; but, on the contrary, differ as much from one another in dress and discipline, as they do in mind and creed,— one stoutly denying the truth of what his neighbour affirms is the only way to Heaven. For, granting that such a strong-hold as the Chi- nese mind might, under exceptionable circumstances at God’s bidding, be invested and taken like Jericho, the besieging force should, at all events, be as close and compact as the Israelite army was around the walls of the city “fenced up to Heaven.” And “‘native” preachers of influence, wherein the strength of a mission lies, should be secured from within the citadel to make it surrender. For a missionary may, 13 2 178 indeed, from without, and ‘with a foreign accent, “harangue” the people on the wall, but a native preacher from within, will alone “ persuade” them to yield.—A few sharp-shooters only, and im their own strength too, we know, did no great things at Ai. In like manner, we cannot expect that, unless God work a miracle in our favour, the Chinese, proud of their ancient institutions, will, on the strength of what a few strangers say, give up at once, prejudices, if you like, but still, associations, a creed, and notions, well-nigh four thousand years old. Would we do so, under similar circumstances? Assuredly not. We ask the question, not, indeed, as doubting the sole efficacy of God’s help,—for “ without Him we can do nothing,” and He “ hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty,” —but we ask it, because nothing is easier than for “ self,” in every shape of “will” or “way,” to ereep in under the bright covering of “ the will and glory of,God.” Like the ghost of Samuel under the witch’s wand, “self” rises at every man’s bidding before him, and is to him as a god. So that even while engaged in God’s service, we may come in our own name, and deliver our own message. Even then, we may ascribe to His august Rule, actions and words for which we shall one day blush in His pre- sence. Let us, then, see, that in all things we act by His will alone. For, undoubtedly, our only way to secure God’s assistance, or even to dare look for His blessing on our labours, is, first to place " 179 ourselves in a fit state to receive either. We must, as the Holy Apostle says, “ stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving fogether for the faith of the Gospel.” “Ὅθεν πρέπει ὑμῖν συντρέχειν τῇ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου γνώμῃ, says St. Ignatius (ad Ephes. iv.), “73 yap ἀξιονόμαστον ὑμῶν πρεσβυτέριον, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄξιον, οὕτως συνήρμοσται τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, ὡς χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ. Διὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ ὁμονοίᾳ ὑμῶν καὶ συμφώνῳ ἀγάπῃ ᾿Ιησοὺς Χριστὸς ἄδεται.---. Κρήσιμον οὖν ἐστιν ὑμᾶς ἐν ἀμώμῳ ἐνότητι εἶναι, ἵνα καὶ Θεοῦ πάντοτε μετέχητε.᾽ For, says a still higher authority,— Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ Θεός, GAN’ εἰρήνης"; would we might add in truth, “ ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ayiov”!—Then “God, even our own God, shall give us His blessing,” and “ pros- per our handy-work.” Then the hope of Heaven among men will appear no longer in the languid throb of intermittent life, but in the continual flow of vital energies, gushing as from the heart into the remotest channels of the Earth,—Curist Himself being the Head of His body, the Church. We have, then, no choice but, as St. Paul did at Athens and at Lystra, to take the people of China as we find them, and to make the most of what they have already that is available towards a more perfect knowledge of the truth. This is evidently our only chance or hope of success; especially when we find that their religion has, in form, many points in com- mon with our own,—one personal God, supreme over all—F'ather—who has a Son, and rules in Heaven over His ministers and a multitude of Spirits, “‘ who 180 bringeth low and lifteth up” whom He will; and rewards or punishes whom He pleases. One who is worshipped alike by the Taouists (see Lao-tsze, c. iv.), by the Joo, or disciples of Confucius (see Ch.-yung. c. xix.), and even by the Buddhists (see the order given by the Emperor Kien-long, relative to the offerings to be made to “ Shang-Si” (7. g., Shang- Te), apart from all other “ gods”—‘‘in edicula Deus unicus.”—(Rituel Mandchou, p. 27, and the special rites thereof at p. 45.) No! we do not believe that a million copies of the — Bible, with “ Sun” in it as a substitute for “ GOD,’ would carry with them to one educated (but as yet unconverted) Chinese, who adores antiquity (and those are the men to be won first, if possible), the weight of either that single passage of the Shoo-king (book i.), where Shun is said to have sacrificed jirst to ὅ3βηλνα- ΤῈ; and only after he had worshipped in- ferior divinities, to have glanced at the “ host of Su,” or “ Spirits,” all round; or the warning of the wicked Show, “who refused to serve SHane-Tr, Suty, and Ke,” in due order (book iv. 1). A Chinese only knows, and believes in, Sum (if he believe at all), as he sees it thus }jjf, in his copy of the classics; or in its more primitive form, as it stood engraved on the bamboo-tablets of the Canon of Yaou. Every attempt to qualify “Sui,” either by “Shang,” “High,” or “Choo,” ‘ Lord” (‘ Shang-Shin” and “ Choo-Shin,” as in Dr. Morrison’s translation), only adds to the ambiguity of the original term, which, 181 if it can ever be made to mean θεός, “ ἃ god” (θεὸς ξυλινός), can not possibly be brought to stand for ὁ Θεός. For, be it remembered, * Surin” is not sus- ceptible of either article, or of any other defining affix; and being itself a collective noun, it never once conveyed the “unity” originally taught in “ Deus” or Θεός. Clearly, then, the only term available for “ ὁ Θεός; the one God—GOD, is the name by which alone the Chinese express their belief in the “ Unity of Power and of Worship,” namely, SHANG-TE, ὁ Ὕψιστος. Ke TE yu kiaou king-che chih yay! ‘“ The worship of Suanc-TE in the open country is the greatest act of adoration”; and—* foo le pen yu TA-YIH,”’—those rites have for their origin the “ great Unity” says the Le-ke (c. viii.). He stands as high-exalted over Suin in the mind of an educated Chinese, imbued with classical lore, as, at Rome, he who said of old, : “‘ Vos quoque, plebs Superfim, Fauni, Satyrique, Laresque, Fluminaque et Nymphe, semidefimque genus, Denique ab antiquo Divi veteresque novique, In nostrum cuncti tempus adeste, Chao!” (Ov. Ibis. 81, sq.) or as the Lorp Most Hieu does in our own mind over the “ powers of the air” and their “ prince.” For, as we have seen, the real meaning of “ Surin” (wit- ness also Dr. Morrison, p. 804, vol. i.) as a noun, in 182 classical Chinese is, “ Power,” or “ Spirits” of the air: So that “Shang-Shin” can only mean the “ Highest Sun”; that is, “Shin-kiun” (Tai-Shang. ad in.) which means, “the Prince of the power of the air.” We think, therefore, that in forcing upon the Chi- nese the term “Sury,” as it seems to us, a mere mockery of the abundant and overflowing meaning of EL, ELOHIM, and Ὃ ΘΕΟΣ, in the sense of “God,” which it never had, and which is quite our own, we needlessly put a stumbling-block in the way of the heathen whom we wish to bring to the know- ledge of the True God. We do worse. We foster among them their own polytheism. And while, at the outset, we thus undo with the left-hand what the right-hand does, we do not sufficiently consider, that we may be sowing the seed of division, if not of future sects, and, perhaps, of heresies, among the still unsuspecting people of China. ἜΗΝ For Sun is only a vassal-prince. If we set him up against his liege sovereign “ SHanc-Tx,” we set up δαίμονα for τὸν Θεόν ;—one of the “ plebs ceeli,” “ divum,” pro “Dzo.” And we do little else in the eyes of an educated Chinese, than play the’ war of the Titans against him who— | “ Diyosque mortalesque turbas Imperio regit Unus eequo.” 183 XII. We do not presume to think that our—sometimes free—rendering of the above passages, fixes irre- vocably their meaning. For it is impossible, without native teaching, and with only a very scanty supply of Chinese books, to acquire more than a moderate knowledge of the classical “‘ koo-wen”; and as to the spoken language, the country air does not of itself, like that of Nan-king, tend to infuse much “ kwan- hwa” into the system. At the same time, we may hope that the portions in our rendering with which our betters may, perhaps, find fault, do not essentially bear on the most important point,—which is, the meaning and acceptation of Sui and of Suanc-Te. Lo us, therefore, it would appear, that no other con- clusion can be drawn from the examples brought forward than this:—that Sumy in Chinese corre- sponds to τὸ Aaipdveov, or to Δαίμων, and is only seldom applicable to θεός, in Greek ; while SHane-TE alone represents Ex, Eronimm, and‘O ΘΕΟΣ. For we have seen that — 1) Suane-Te is ONE, over all, Supreme: so is Ex and Etoumm: so is also @eés,—not only in its original meaning, but in its acceptation in Greek writers. See above, p. 126; and also, for instance, Orac. Si- byllina (Procem. and lib. i. 1, seg. )— 184 Eis Θεὸς ὅς μόνος ἄρχει, ὑπερμεγέθης ἀγένητος. ᾿Αλλὰ Θεὸς μόνος εἷς πανυπέρτατος, ὅς πεποίηκεν Οὐρανὸν, ἠέλιόν τε, K.T.X. and Orpheus (fr. 11.}-- Eis ἔστ᾽ αὐτοτελής, αὐτοῦ δ᾽ ὑπό πάντα τελεῖται οὐδέ τις ἔσθ᾽ ἕτερος .---- In Homer, the “individual god” of the Greeks, Ζεὺς —‘“ theologice sic vocatur summus deus,” says Damm, is :—*“ Πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν te θεῶν re,”—" ὅστε θεοῖσε καὶ ἀνθρώποισι ἀνάσσει." 11. 8. 669. “ ὑψίζυγος, aibépe ναίων," δ. 106. “μέγας βασιλεύς" .-- ὕψοθι ἐών᾽.---““ ὕπα- tos θεῶν καὶ ἄριστος." τ. 258, etc. Callimachus addresses τὸν Δία (in Jov. 91) as— χαῖρε μέγα, Κρονίδη travyréptata, δῶτορ ἐάων σὺ δ᾽ οὐ Odves: ἐσσὶ γὰρ αἰεί. and Cleanthes (Hym. in Joy. 2, 7)— Zed, φύσεως ἀρχηγὲ, νόμου μέτα πάντα κυβερνῶν χαῖρε ---- \ a “ 4 ς , a gol δὲ πᾶς ὅδε κόσμος ἑλισσόμενος περὶ γαῖαν πείθεται, ἧ κεν ἄγῃς, καὶ ἐκὼν ὑπὸ σεῖο κρατεῖται. and among later writers, Lucian (Philopatr. 12) says,— KPIT. Καὶ τίνα ἐπομόσομαί γε: ΤΡΙΕΦ. “Ὑψιμέδοντα θεὸν, μέγαν, ἄμβροτον, οὐρανίωνα, Υἱὸν πατρὸς, πνεῦμα ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, "Ev ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ἐνὸς tpla, Ταῦτα νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τὸν δ᾽ ἠγοῦ Θεόν." 2) As Κ'βηανα:- ΤῈ is “ Supreme,” so also he is worshipped — : Bilin cy ν = =. => ee 4. 4) The first, and before all other deities (see above, pp. 167, 168;) and Le-ke, (c. vi.). “ Command the people” —* wo-puh hwei chuh ke le i k*hing Hwang- T’heen-SHANG-TE; ming-shan; {ta-ch’huen, sse-fang-che- SHIN,” etc.—‘ not to hesitate to contribute with all their power to the worship of the Imperial Heaven, SHaneG-Te ; to that of celebrated mountains; of great rivers; and of the Sum of the four quarters,” etc. (ibid. c. viii. ete.). That sacrifice takes place in the open country (sub dio), in order “to establish the Rule (or Authority) of Heaven” (see above, p. 133; and Le-ke, c. viii.). In consequence of that sacrifice, “the winds blew and the rain fell moderately” (c. ix.). The object of those rites is the “ Ta-yih,” or “ great unity”; and they are “ graduated from those ordered for ὅπανα- ΤῈ, downwards, to the ceremonies intended for the worship of the tutelary gods, of the hills, of the rivers, and of Shin” (6. viii.). That worship of SHanGc-Te—“ ju keaou king-chih che yay ”—is per- formed in the open country in token of the highest possible veneration” (c. ix. ad f.); and the victim appointed for that sacrifice is an ox, purified by a certain process;* whereas any kind of ox may be offered to ancestors. This is intended, says the Le- ke, to show the superiority of the Deity over the ~ * Compare “ ’IovFe xparovFi tpe βουφ getrov”—ofter three oxen “Jovi Grabovi” (Iguvinian tab. iv. 6, 2, sg.). They were “ τῤεφ βουφ xarepoud,” “ tres boves 186 kwei, or “souls of men” (c. x.). That sacrifice again — brings happiness, if duly performed (c. xvi., and xxiv.), or misery if it be neglected (ὁ. xxvii.). b) The rites of the worship of Suane-TE are always conducted by one man, set apart for that pur- pose, viz., by the “‘ T’heen-T'sze”—‘“ Son of Heaven,” the Emperor (Le-ke, c. v.), who, being thus set apart by Heaven, says of himself (c. ii.) “ Yu yih jin”—“ 1 am one man,” ὦ. 6... “alone of my kind!” The Em- peror is thus both the High Priest, the King, and the Prophet of his people; for he alone has the power (Ch. Yung. c. xxviii. 2), to enforce the rites and ceremonies of that sacrifice, which, he alone also, can offer before going to battle (c. v.), while his officers | preside over the worship of inferior deities. He candidi” (comp. Liv. xxii. 10,—“ bubus Jovi trecentis, multis aliis divis bubus albis,” and Sibyll. Or.— Ζάλευκοι τᾶυροι δὲ Διὸς παρὰ βωμὸν ἀγέσθων "Hyatt, μηδέ τε νυκτί--- or at other times one only (Ig. tab. v. 6,24) : “ Ἰουπατεῤ, Sate, τεφε ecrov Firdov,” “Jupiter, Saisi, tibi esto vitulo”; and v. 4, ‘IovFe warpe βουμ πεῤακνε," ‘ Joyi Patri bovem castum,” etc. He, like Shang-Te, was worshipped the jirst (ibid. tab. ii. 22, sg.): IouFe Ilatpe πῤουμου ἀμπεντου," “ Jovi Patri primum rem divinam facito” (see Grotefend. Rud. L. Umbr. iii. 19, sqq.). 187 regulates that worship, and conducts it, dressed in his robes, and in other suitable apparel (Chow-Le, pp- 13, 89, ed. Gingell), made of a particular silk, for the manufacture of which the Empress herself gathers mulberry leaves in the third month of Spring (Le-ke, 6. vi.).—It is only “ Shing-jin wei neng heang TE”—a “holy man,” a “man eminent in virtue,” who can suitably worship Suanc-Tx: and we read (c. xxiv.), that so great was the piety of the Emperor T’ang,— “kih che-che SHANG-TE”—that it gradually reached SHANG-Te unhindered (by any sinful actions),— “She che TE ming shih ju kew kwo”—and that, as a reward for his devout conduct, ΤῈ ordered that T’ang should become the pattern of the whole empire. _. We may compare the salient points in the worship of Suane-Tx, as distinguished from that of Sur, and of other inferior deities, with the worship of Θεός or Ζεύς among the Greeks; and we may then see which comes nearest in dignity and importance to the ser- vice rendered τῷ Θεῷ, or to DTN, Exonm, in Holy Scripture. : 3) Suane-Tx, like Ex, Exonm, and Θεός, dwells in Heaven (see above, p. 169), which is, “ οἶκος θεῶν μακάρων. Orph. H. iv. “ μακάρεσσι θεοῖς ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεί." Hes. Th. 128. “Spatium cceli domus.” Lucr. ii. 1109. “Palatia celi” (Ov. M. i. 175), ete., where “ ἔστε μέγας ἐν οὐρανῷ Ζεὺς" (Sophoc. El. 174); and Θεός (Orph. fr. ii. )— — ἔστι δὲ πάντως αὐτὸς ἐπουράνιος, καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ πάντα τελευτᾷ. 188 And as to our God, troy by, “The Mighty—Most- High,” —fi2p DY! TaD PITY Bye 3 DIT 03:5) Nd pwn “DeA JHaw,—will He really dwell on the Earth? For behold the Heavens “ are His dwelling-place,” and the Heavens of Heavens cannot contain Him who yet—D'aY3 mis ΚΡ, ΤΉΝ) ----ἰς humbleth Himself to behold what is in Heaven and on the Earth.” 4) “Heaven,” T’heen, as abode of “ Suane-Tx,” is called “Imperial” (Shoo-k. iv. 9,11; and Le-ke, c. Vi. ), “' koopoxpdtap”—“ πανυπέρτατε δαίμον 1" Orph. H. iv. Thus, ¢. g., as abode of “ Exon,” Dan. iv. 23, “ΤῚ NY pop! “| ὉΠ, “until thou hast learnt, O. king! that the Heavens rule”; and, Eccl. viii. 4, N'DY jb NINN, “they are decreed from Hzaven.” 5) Heaven is identified with SHane-Tr, with EL, Exon, and ὁ Θεός, and thus, as it were, personified (see above p. 180; and Le-ke, c. ii. viii. etc.; Ch. Yung. c. xx. 7, etc.) ‘ Initio primus in terris,” says Euhemerus, “ imperium summum Uranus habuit” (Ennii rel. p. 65, ed. Gil.); and Hes. Th. 45. θεῶν yévos — — οὕς Γαῖα καὶ Οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ἔτικτεν, κ.τ.λ. Plato, Tim. sec. 15, οὔο. ; and St. Luke, ο. xv., πάτερ, ἥμαρτον eis τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν cov.” And Asch. fr. 1. 96, “Ζεύς ἐστιν αἰθὴρ ---- Ζεὺς δ᾽ οὐρανός," κ.τ.Χ. (Comp. Job xxii. 19, DYY 5) πῆ το.) And for that reason,— 6) “ Heaven,” T’HEEn, is worshipped 189 a) as abode of Suane-Tr, and with him (see p. 169; and the Shoo-king throughout). Le-ke (c. x.), ts’heu tsae ju Tih, ἐπ θα tsae ju T’HEEN. She i tsun T’HEEN, cul ts’hin Tih yay. ‘‘ We receive our wealth from the Earth, and our laws from Heaven. We ought therefore to obey Heaven, and to feel attached © to the Earth.” We read further, that ὅπανα- ΤῈ is worshipped in the open country, “for the express purpose,” says the Le-ke, ὁ. viii., so-i tching T7HEEN- wei yay, “of establishing the Rule (or Majesty) of Heaven.” (See also, c. v.)* δ) “Heaven” is worshipped as abode of Θεός or * The name and worship of “ T’heen,” Heaven, seems to have passed from China into the neigh- bouring countries. Thus, “T’heen-li,” “ Reason of Heaven,” “‘ Providence,” became, probably, “ Tai-ri,” when roughly pronounced by the Uighurs, and adopted by them to denote both “‘ Heaven” and “ God Most-high.” “'Ta-ri” is also used in Uighur as an adjective, very much like “Shin” in the Chinese “Shin-niu,” “dia γῦναι".--“’ δαιμόνιος avip”—“ divus Augustus,” etc., to mean “ Heavenly,” or ““ divine.” For instance, we read in petitions from the inha- bitants of Chamul to the Emperor of China, “ Tai-ri khakhan serintchib (‘lan-min’) neder ma.” ‘ The hea- venly Emperor will graciously accept,’ ete. (See Klaproth’s Spr. u. Schr. der Uighuren, pp. 9, 28, 29; and A. Remusat’s Ll. Tartares, lang. Ouigour.) 190 Ζεύς. Euhemerus (1. ὁ. p. 67) says: “ Ibique in eo monte (Panto) aram creat Coelo, primusque in ea ara Jupiter sacrificavit; in eo loco suspexit in celum* quod Οὐρανός nominatur ; idque Jupiter, quod ether vocatur precans primum ‘Ccelum’ nominavit ; eam- que hostiam quam ibi sacravit, totam adolevit.” And Orpheus (H. iv.) Οὐρανοῦ θυμίαμα, λίβανον, as quoted above, says (Faiav Οὐρανόν τε acai! isch. P. 491). O ὑρανὲ παγγενέτωρ----πανυπέρτατε δαίμον κλῦθ᾽, ἐπάγων ζωὴν ὁσίην μύστῃ νεόφαντῃ, etc. 6) “ Heaven” is “taken to witness,” as abode of Eronm. “This day I take to witness—O32 ΤΩΣ PINTNS) OMT ms oT—Heaven and Earth against you,’ said Moses to the children of Israel (Deut. iv. 26; xxx. 19; xxxi. 28). 7) ὅβηλανα- ΤῈ, like Exonmm and ὁ Θεός, rules in Heaven, surrounded by his ministers (see Kan-ing- pien, pp. 10, 11; and “‘ San-kiao huen-lew,” pp. 9-20). They are inferior to him, for he alone is “ Shang,” Supreme, over them. And as regards ELoum and 6 Θεός, those inferior Spirits or gods are either their creatures, or their offspring. Porphyrius (in Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 2,53) says: “7d δὲ πλῆθος τῶν θεῶν ἔργον * Comp. the Chinese Emperor, ascending a high hill to worship Heaven, etc. (Le-ke, ο. ix.; and Vi- tringa in Is. ii. 899, a.) ae 191 ἔστι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, ἅμα τῷ κόσμῳ γενόμενον." Θεός ad- dresses them (Plato Tim. sec. 16) thus:—* θεοί θεῶν, ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων, ἅ Sv ἐμοῦ γενόμενα ἄλυτα ἐμοῦ γ᾽ ἐθέλοντος.---μιμούμενος τὴν ἐμὴν δύναμιν περὶ τὴν ὑμετέραν γένεσιν," κιτιλ. “ Nam ministros regni sui Deus genuit,” says Seneca (in Lact. lib. ὁ. v. vii.), and Manu (Sanhita, i. 22)— karmatmanan-cha devanan so s srijat pranimam Prabhu: | sadhyanan-cha ganam suk’hsman jagyan chaiva sanatanam. | } * The Supreme Ruler created a host of gods, endowed with principles of action and with living souls; as well as a number of subtle genii, and also the per- petual sacrifice.” That “plebs ceeli,” “ πλῆθος θεῶν," those “ ministri regni dei,” are in Holy Scripture, the poy ‘33, Gen. vi. 2; Job i. 26, etc. (rendered in Chaldee by ΤΙΝ ‘Nd, “legions of Angels”), and the Dawn NI¥, “orparia οὐράνιος, St. Luke ii. 13. They are mentioned in Carm. Samarit. c. iii. 8, as AATALAS 'XANIV, “ copiz divine” (frequently al- luded to by the Sabeans in Lib. Adami, as 13Zo} “genius,” from 34s “to excel,” (Psalm ciii. 20,— “Angels that excel in strength”); as, ¢.g., lib. i. p- 174, Ἰδῆάοο 1μ31 1520} Ἰὼ» 1,10 AX]—‘‘ Thou Ge- nius, harbinger of life, thyself ready, and making others ready also,” etc.); and the sm2my “ Potes- tates,” ἐξουσίαι, Carm. iv. 8. They are the ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ," —in one sense “ἥρωες ἀγαυοὶ (Pyth. Aur. c. 2), on which Hierocles remarks : —* τοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ δαίμονας 192 ἀγαθοὺς καλεῖν ἔθος, ὡς ὄντας δαήμονας καὶ ἐπιστήμονας τῶν θείων νόμων.--“Οθεν καὶ ‘ Θεοῦ παΐῖδες᾽" οἱ ἥρωες εἰκότως ἐπευφημοῦνται.᾽ They are, as the Clarian Apollo said at Colophon (Orac. v. ed. Gall. p. 14; Lact. lib. 1. ο. 7) :— —‘* μικρὰ δὲ θεοῦ μερίς ἄγγελοι ἡμεῖς." who, (Orph. fr. iii. p. 454, ed. H.; and Euseb. Pr. Evy. Ρ. 686, ed. Col.) around θεοῦ---- —‘ θρόνῳ πυρόεντι παρεστᾶσιν πολύμοχθοι ρονῷ πὺυρ ρ ἄγγελοι οἷσι μέμηλε, βροτοῖς ὡς πάντα τελεῖται." and stand “orl πρᾶτον Θεὸν καὶ νοατόν," Says Onatas, “ ὥσπερ χορευταὶ ποτὶ κορυφαῖον, καὶ στρατιῶται ποτὶ στρα- τηγόν᾽" (Stob. Ecl. Ph. i. 2, 28),—‘ στρατία θεῶν τε καὶ δαιμόνων" (Macrob. Sat. i. 23). They are (Orph. fr. 111. 3) subject to him,— “ς δαίμονες bv φρίσσουσι, θεῶν δὲ δέδοικεν ὅμιλος "" and they obey (Aristoph. Nub. 555)— “«γμψιμέδοντα μὲν θεῶν 2) Ζῆνα τύραννον a) As regards Exon, we read in his word, “ The Scripture of Truth,” of the ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις (Eph. 111. 10; comp. with Asc. Isaie y. vii. 9); and that even πλῆθος (St. Luke ii. 13), “a multitude” is but a small band of that Heavenly Host. We are told of MIM*NI¥“WY, “ The Prince,” or “ Captain of that Host” (Josh. v. 14) ;—of “ Che- rubim” (Psalm Ixxx. 1; xcix. 1)— (Ὁ Gs EO — wie ον “who stand nearest to God” (Hyde, Rel. V. P. p. 262) ;— of “ Seraphim” (Is. vi. 1-7) ;*— of “ Archangels” (1 Thess. iv. 16; St. Jude, 9; Rev. xii. 7);—of “ Watchers” (Dan. iv. 10, 17, 20);+— * The Eastern Church teaches that Angels are arranged in three διακοσμήσεις ; each of which contains three rdfeu.— I. τὰ Χερουβὶμ, τὰ Σεραφὶμ, καὶ τοὺς Θρό- vous.—II. τὰς Κυριότητας, τὰς ᾿Εξουσίας, τὰς Δυνάμεις. —III. τὰς ᾿Αρχὰς, τοὺς ᾿Αρχαγγέλους καὶ τοὺς ᾿Α γγέλους. (See Metroph. Critopuli Conf. p. 52), or, “ἐν ἐννέα χοροὺς διαιροῦνται, καὶ οἱ ἐννέα τούτοις εἰς τρεῖς τάξεις" (Confessio Orthod. p. 80, ed. Kimmel). It is in accordance with these hierarchical orders in Heaven, that the same Church praises God, for that He has also in His Church upon Earth, “ chosen faithful men to do His will; + ojo 40 ps σι) .9;20 qa (2 Ws02) Jats yu] LAgso 1105 οἱ r2S0 . foy\%o9—and having distinguished their several or- ders one from the other, has made them ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ (middling) according to the number of the nine orders of Angels.” (Codex Liturg. Eccles. Univ. ed. J. A. Asseman. v. ii. pp. 18, 49, 74, 132, 137, etc.; but see especially the learned note of J. Morinus, in the Appendix to that volume.) + We read in Dan. iv. 10, 20,—WIp) TY 198) mm} Ne}, “Behold a Watcher and a Holy One were coming down from Heaven;” and v. 14,— SDNY POMP ND NDINB PTY NWR, “This 14 194 of an “innumerable company of Angels” (Heb. xii. 22; comp. Ase. Is. ix. 6), whose honour and pri- vilege is, as Seberianus (Hom. i. ad. f.) says:— ε agusun fre. ΡΣ ΤΣ] ear re_1s4 9 {μεν lyeis fyusputap,”’ “to matter is by the decree of the ‘ Watchers,’ and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones.” (A. V.) Whether or no, those ““ Watchers” were a Zendic notion (see Rhode, die Relig. des Zend-V. p. 332, 341, sq.), we find them mentioned very frequently among the Rabbis, and in the early writers of the Eastern Church. They were oxnpo sym "565. says R. Saad. B. Ga’ou, called ἽΝ “ Watchers” (Gesen. 1. c.), according to ὃ. Ben. Melech,—obws sv frp— “because YY is always on the watch” (Hyde de V. P. Rel. p. 269). We cannot find that, as Winer (Real-Wort. 1. c.) and Gesenius (1. 6.) say, they have much in common with the “ Farohars,” or “ Fravaharis,” of the Zend-Avesta. But their office seems rather to correspond with that of the Ny yO in Job xxxiii, 23, which A. Ezra explains to be wp TD y3PM Ned pp fo ah wfby, “an Angel who . frequents a man to preserve him from evil (‘ Angels,’ comp. ‘ Serosch,’ in the Z. Av.); and to make him understand the secret of his intricate walk in life.” For, there is—vtv Ssppep in op” py qhby o7f $25 Ρ’--- “to every man an instructing Angel who directs his star (fortune), and who intercedes for him” (Eisen- meng. Entdekt. Jud. ii. p. 389; in Gesen. Thes. 1. c.). 195 stand around the throne of God” (Rev. v. 11, vii. 11), ‘whom they worship” (Psalm xcevii. 7; Heb. i. 6; Rey. vii. 11); “and do His commandments, hearken- ing unto the voice of His Word” (Ps. ciii. 19, 20). The word Y, in Dan. iv. 10, 17, 20, is rendered in the Arabic vers. by οὐδὸν “vigil”; in the lxx., by ep, which means nothing in Greek. This figures in the Coptic version of Daniel as orup (ed. Tattam, p- 298), and ovip (ed. J. Bardelli, pp. 46,47). Inthe Armenian version it is rendered by “ gqniwp[Ant,” “watching,” “ vigil,” éypyyopés; which is exactly given in “bodrii” of the ancient Slavonic version. Pry “Watchers,” are the “" Γρήγοροι ἀλφιστῆρες" (of Orac. Sibyll, p. 90), the try, “ vigiles,” often mentioned in the “ Book of Enoch” (¢.g., c. xii.), said of “‘ good Angels,” Ont: 722. : PMA: PLAT: OPM: TTYZ: NEPOA: HAU:: “ And they did it all with the Saints and with the ‘ Watchers’ in those days,”’—of “fallen” ones (ibid. v. 5), UPn: Aho: RLP: aC: ALLO: ATTYL: AML: AA: ser: AMC :: “O Enoch! scribe of righteousness! goand make known to the ‘ Watchers’ that they have left Heaven,” etc. It does not, however, occur, we believe, in the “‘ Ascension of Isaiah,” which is a book of a probably very early date; nor yet in the “ Di- dascalia Aithiopica;” except as an adjective applied to a “ Bishop” (p. 25), ete. ““Sed Vigiles,” says J. Morinus, “ Syris post Da- 196 Further, we may take comfort from the thought that they are all ministering Spirits, sent forth, by our Heavenly Father, “to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14). “ αἴροντες nielem sunt celeberrimi.” In the Lib. Adami, Yas generally means “a guardian Angel” (as, 6. g., lib. i. Ῥ. 148)—“ How shall we speak of the superiority in 180] Lu052 J] ska8 «Ὁ hye rah? 5 .e.20 nature of the guardian Angel who goes about, over that of the word of a Speaking Spirit?” and ii. 318, ete. Ina Syriac Liturgy, quoted by J. Morinus (in Appendix ad vol. ii. Codic. Liturg. Eccles. Univ. p. 242), we read that the choir of “ Watchers” is higher in rank than even the Cherubim and Seraphim. oowso aw Vs}, 02 ja; .olac\ od ~23,%0 lo ono qatar, [Aaojdo . odor . «δὴ 855}; Ἰϑοῖϑο + Ay ior TAX Soohtotor Jas . cawitoto LK uoni0.20 yasato {80 W «οὐ o1n;80 =“ God is far from the sons of men in appearance, and they cannot com- prehend His majesty; nor yet the Seraphim with six wings, nor the Cherubim with four faces. These carry his throne, and dare not look at Him. But as to the Watcher who never slumbers, no man can describe his office.” This order, however, varies, even in the Syrian Church. In S. Ephrem, H. vii. “ adv. Scrutatores,” God is called Vase {so “The Lord of the Watchers,” — ‘ 197 ἡμᾶς καὶ κουφίζοντες πρὸς τὴν θείαν πολιτείαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν γῇ διατριβῆς ---- καὶ ἐκφαίνοντες καὶ διωγγέλλοντες ἡμῖν τοὺς πρὸς εὐζοΐαν κανόνας," says even the heathen Hierocles (com. in Aur. Carm. iii. 2). And, lastly, we ought to take warning, and live in awe of that cloud of unseen witnesses, who at present, either grieve or rejoice over us, according to our walk in life. For we shall one day see them face to face; and before them, assembled on high, our Lord Jesus—at whose ineffable name they bow (St. Luke, xii. 8, 9)—will either “confess” or “ deny” us ! b) As regards the Greek notions of Θεός, we find that, as Joh. Lydus (de Mens. p. 52, ed. Roeth.) says : Θεῶν δὲ (τῶν ἐν γενέσει) τριὰ γένη οὐράνιον, ἐπύγειον, Kal τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων." “created gods are of three kinds: H. iii. adv. ib. Yas pido ou {soo —“* before whom the Watchers (are ashamed) veil their faces.” (See also Sermo v. throughout.) Ibid. Can. Funeb. xv. 38, }o%) So yaw Yas “ἃ Watcher will awake thee out of thy sleep.” See also Opp. T. ii. 455, 456; but especially 546, etc., and Severi Patr. lib. rit. p. 110,— ow ToiXsoo ae ai0;S0;80? ow qatoato, “praise belongeth to Him whom Watchers extol, and whom Angels serve,” etc. 5. Ephrem was followed or carried to his grave by Angels and ‘‘ Watchers.” (See Acta 5. Ephremi. Opp. v. ii.; and Assem. B. Or. y. i. 52, sq.) 198 of Heaven, of the Earth, of the middle space.” “© ἐξουσία τοῦ ἀέρος," Eph. 11. 2. “ ἐναιθέριοί τινες δυ- νάμεις," (according to Plato, ἄλογοι δὲ εἰσιν καὶ ἀσω- ματοι)--- ἄγγελοι (οὐράνιοι) ---ἥρωες (ἐπίγειοι),---δαίμονες (τῶν ἀμφὶ ἄκρων ἀπέχον) (Hierocl. iii. 2). But over all those— ἀνωτάτω δὲ πάντων νοῦν ἐναιθέριον εἶναι Oedv,”— “God exists, a celestial mind above” (Stob. Ecl. Ph. i. 2), to whom they—“ plebs Dei” (Ov. M. 1)—are subject. For (Orac. Vet. p. 43)— “ Aaipoves of φοιτῶσι περὶ χθόνα καὶ περὶ πόντον, ἀκάματοι, δάμανται ὑπαὶ μάστιγι θεοίο." 6) As regards ηλνα- ΤῈ, we see him alone “ Shang,” supreme over the other five Te’s or “elements,” and over the inferior gods, who preside over the air, the land, and the sea. He alone is mentioned in the oldest annals of the Shoo-king, in the Le-ke, and in the works of Confucius; while the other Te’s are not once alluded to in those books, and only in later and modern works. But the Earth, the air, and the sea, are in their turn peopled with innumerable “ Spirits,” some of which are of the Earth, and are called She, or Shay; and others of the air, and are called “ Sun.” “ Sun,” then, in our opinion, is no substitute for Et, Exontm, and ὁ Θεός. As an “ emanation” from Heaven, and as the “ Ling” of the “ Yang” principle, it answers to Πνεῦμα or Δαίμων; and, perhaps, not even to that. For Aaiuer is declinable, and like Θεός, both masculine and feminine: it may be either 6 or ἡ δαίμων, οἱ δαίμονες, etc. Whereas Surv does not even a ee 199 possess the shadow of “personality” which exists in the masculine ὁ δαίμων ; but it is indeclinable, and can take neither article, number, nor gender. The Arabic word = “ genn,” “ genii,” which, like Suny, | is a collective noun, or τὸ δαιμόνιον in a collective sense, seems to come nearest to it.* * Asa collective noun, Sain seems to correspond best with the well-known Arabic wr “ venii” (from we “to cover, hide; to be obscure and indistinct”). It is thus described by Djeuhari:— iJ jad! Wy Oy com li fog ἘΝ dats, δὶ wy 4, it “(The race) ‘genn’ is opposed to man. One ‘genn’ is called se: The race of them is so named bevanse they are dreaded and not seen.” (See Ch.-Yung. c. xvi.) They, too, like Sutin are both “good and bad,” 6. σ., in the Coran (Sur. 72, 11, 14), one of them, says gL 9 Ul, oss ΠΡ US WSIS ων», Listy pyallal! “Behold, some of us are good, and some of us, on the contrary, are wayward,” etc. The bad ones are called “Sheitan,” as Djeuhari says:—— y+ οἷν οὐ. νῶν, οὐδ, sl ot Ope ok SS, What “ Sheitan” means is ae known. Every one, either among the “genn,” men, or beasts, who is either rebellious or disobedient, is a ‘“‘ Sheitan,” devil. (See H. Reland. de Rel. Muham. p. 185.) 200 XII. It is evident that, were it only for the writ of accusation against Socrates— ἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης, ods μὲν ἡ πόλις νομίζει Θεοὺς, οὐ νομίζων, ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ ΖΔαιμόνια εἰσφέρων" (Xenoph. Μ. i. 1)—there existed ἃ differ- | ence among the Greeks between θεός and δαίμων; although they were sometimes apparently taken one for the other, 6. g., Il. (ρ΄. 98),— é ““ ὁππότ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἐθέλη πρὸς δαίμονα φωτὶ μάχεσθαι ὅν κε θεὸς τιμᾷ, τάχα οἱ μέγα πῆμα κυλίσθη,᾽" κ.τ.λ. We have seen the original meaning of θεός, oii what is that of δαίμων ?—hic, fateor —“ male laxus In pede heeret calceus” So that, with Max. Tyrius (Ady. a’) “ περὶ μὲν δαιμόνων ἀμφισβητῶν, λόγον λόγῳ φέρω, Kal ἀνέχομαι τὴν oTdow.”— “ Φέρε, (Aoy. κζ΄) ἐρώμεθα τὸ δαιμόνιον---ὧδέ πως, κατὰ τὸν τοῦ “Ounpov ᾿Οδυσσέα----(Οα. ἕξ. 150.) — Θεός νύ τοι ἢ βροτὸς ἐσσί-----καὶ “Εἰ μέν τις θεός ἐσσι τοὶ οὐρανόν ἐυρὺν ἔχουσιν," οὐδὲν δεῖ λόγων᾽ ἴσμεν γὰρ τὰ σά; ͵ “Εἰ δέ τίς ἐσσι βροτῶν τοὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ ναιετάουσιν," 5 nm n 7 c / 3 eS \ Ee J ἄρα τοιοῦτον χρῆμα, οἵον ὁμοπαθές τε εἶναι ἡμῖν καὶ ὁμόφωνον, Ἀ A x \ \ f > Ld n a \ Kal σύγχρονον, ἢ κατὰ τὴν δίαιταν ἐφέστιον τῇ γῇ, κατὰ δὲ 201 τὴν οὐσίαν κρεῖττον αὐτῆς ; ob γὰρ σάρκες ai δαιμόνων φύ- σεις, κι. τ.λ. But even “7d ὄνομα," is by no means so “δῆλον as our author seems to think it (roy. é.) [5 it from δάω or Salm? “ut adeo δαίμων proprie sit ‘ distributor,’ quod in deum et genios recté quadrat?” (Et. Gr. V. Lennep) “aut ut Possidonius dicit—quia ex eztherea substantia parta atque divisa qualitas illis est?” Macrob. (Sat. i. 23.) Or rather, as Plato says (Cratyl. sec. 33, ed. Bek.): “Τοῦτο τοίνυν παντὸς μᾶλλον λέγει (Ἡσίοδος) ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, τοὺς δαίμονας, ὅτι φρόνιμοι καὶ “ δαήμονες᾽ ἧσαν, ‘dalwovas’ αὐτούς ὠνόμασε," «.7.r.* And Hesiod, Op. et D. 314: “δαίμονι δ᾽ οἷος eoba”—* δαίμων hic non est deus, sed ‘ peritus,’ ‘consultus.’”—Hesych. : “ἐ δαίμων, Sajpov.’—Et. M. pp. 35, 24: “ δαίμων ὁ adro- SiSaxros.”—Archilochus in Plut. Thes. 5: “ταύτης γὰρ κεῖνοι δαίμονές εἰσι μάχης," etc. (See Gottling’s note, lc.) We confess, however, that at the risk of ‘ ὁποῖόν φασι τὴν γλαῦκα πάσχειν, πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἀμαυρουμένην,᾽ being thought an owl in broad daylight,” “ εἰ γάρ τις i * Compare δαήμων with the Sanscrit “ D’HIMAN,” “ sensible, wise, learned;” a name of. Vrihaspati, the preceptor of the “gods,” etc. Thus, in Nalod.— tava shishyena d’himata,” etc., ‘by thy clever pupil,” etc. Or, compare according to Prof. Bopp. (Comp. Gr. v. i. p. 164, Eng. tr.), δαίμων with ATMA; which, in spite of the manifold virtues of the Zolic digamma, appears somewhat far-fetched. 202 ἐς τὰς Πλάτωνος φωνὰς ἐμπεσὼν ἑτέρων δεῖται λόγων ----οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὸν ἥλιον ἴδοι ἀνίσχοντα" (Max. Tyr. λόγ. a’ )—we might wish for some other etymology for δαίμων ; and one clearer than Plato’s words. Whatever, then, be the origin of ““ δαίμων," let us see in what respects it corresponds with Sain in Chinese. 1) The primary meaning of δαίμων, as distinguished from Θεός, seems given in these words of an uncertain author (Stob. Ecl. Phys. lib. i. ii. 39):—* Θεὸς μὲν av ἐντι, καθάπερ ἐν ἀρχᾷ TH λόγῷ εἶπον, αὐτὸς yap ἀρχὰ καὶ πρῶτον" θεῖος δὲ ὁ κόσμος," καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ δινεύμενα πάντα" ὡς ὁμοίως τε καὶ δαίμων ἐντὶ ἃ ψυχὰ, αὐτὰ γὰρ ἄρχει καὶ κινεῖ τὸ διόλω ζῶον. “ God, then, exists, as I said in the beginning of my argument; for He is both the beginning and the first principle. The universe is of God (θεῖος), as well as whatever moves in it; while Δαίμων (the deity) is the soul thereof—(‘ Sarva- gatam Brahma,’ ‘the deity that pervades all things’ Bhag. G. iii.)—for it rules and sets in motion the — whole living world; which world, said Thales (Diog. L. lib. i. 1, 6), is ἔμψυχος καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρης." This acceptation of δαίμων exactly agrees with the (ἐποίησεν ὧν τόν Se τὸν κόσμον ἐξ ἁπάσας τᾶς ὕλας ---- ἕνα, μονογενῆ, τέλειον, ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ λογικόν ----οὔ ποκα φθαρησόμενον ὑπ᾽ ἄλλῳ αὐτίω, ἔξω τῷ αὐτὸν συντεταγμένω θεῶ, εἴ ποκα δήλετο αὐτὸν διαλύεν." (Timeus Locr. de Anima M. p. 545, sq. ed. Gale.) 203 collective sense of “ Kwet-Saun,” “ ψυχαὶ καὶ δαίμονες" (Philo J.de Gig. 4), which, as we have seen (Ch.- Yung, 9. xvi.), “you look for and cannot see! you listen to and cannot hear !""-- +’he-wuh, Θὰ] puh ko ee! Yang yang hoo! joo tsae ke shang; joo tsae ke tso yew.”— “they enter into the very essence of things and cannot be separated from it! Like the waves of the Ocean, in amplitude, they are above us, and they surround us on every side!” 4Δαίμων, then, corresponds not only to the Arabic wr) but also to the Vaidic “ Vishwa- devas,” or “ PE-SHIN”; for, says Iamblichus (de Myst. sec. 1. ¢. Vi.): “ τίθεμαι δὴ οὖν TO μὲν δαιμόνιον φῦλον ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ πληθυνόμενον, καὶ συμμυγνύμενον ἀμυγῶς," etc. It also partly agrees with the words of Seneca (Ep. Ixy. 24),—* quem in hoe mundo locum Deus obtinet, hune in homine animus; quod est illic materia, id nobis corpus est.” And Lucan. (Phars. ix. 578),— “ Estne dei sedes, nisi terra, et pontus et aér, Et celum, et virtus — Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque mo- veris.” nam et “ Jovis omnia plena.” (Eclog. vi. 60.) But here “ Deus” is “ animus”; whereas “ Sum,” which “the-wuh” gives entity to the material world (like δαίμων the ψυχὴ thereof), is inferior to SHANG- ΤῈ (see Shoo-king iv. 1), as δαίμων (ἡ ψυχή) is to “Θεός ὅς ἐποίησεν τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν. “Οἱ δὲ τὴν δαιμονίαν ἐπιστασίαν διαλαχόντες," says [Δ70}}}}1- chus (de Myst. sec. i. 6. xx.), “ μοίρας τινὰς μεριστὰς 204 τοῦ κόσμου κατατεινάμενοι ταύτας KatevOivovow,”—(comp. “sse-fang SHIN,” above, p. 149). “““Ὅλως δὲ τὸ μὲν θεῖόν ἐστιν ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ προϊστάμενον τῆς ἐν τοῖς οὖσι διατάξεως," κιτιλ. For, let this important fact be well borne in mind, even if “Surin” be granted to correspond, as it does, in Chinese ideas with ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου of Plato, or with his “ πνεῦμα" (in Phi- lebus), where he mentions “ τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων φύσιν ἁπάντων τῶν ζώων Πῦρ, καὶ Ὕδωρ, καὶ Πνεῦμα καθορῶμέν που καὶ Τῆν, that the comparison goes no further. For, he plainly says, “Ὅτι σμικρόν τι τούτων ἕκαστον παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔνεστι καὶ φαυλὸν, καὶ οὐδαμῆ οὐδαμῶς εἱλικρινές dv.” “that we are individually made | up of a small, insignificant, and not particularly pure, portion of each of those four elements”: and says again, “7d παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σῶμα dp ov ψυχὴν φήσομεν ἔχειν; δῆλον Ste φήσομεν." ‘Shall we then say that our body contains no soul? Of course it does.” πόθεν, ὦ φίλε Πρώταρχε, λαβόν. “From whence, my good friend, does it receive that soul—eizrep μὴ τό γε τοῦ παντὸς σῶμα ἔμψυχον ὃν ériyyave;—if it be not a part and parcel of the body of the universe, which is ἔμψυχον, endowed with a soul?” According to Plato, then, our ψυχή is a part of the πνεῦμα, Or “spiritual essence,” in the Universe. But SHIN is not that as regards ourselves; for our “soul” is “ Kwei,” which is always distinguished from SH (see Le-ke, c. xix.); where “ Kwei” and “Shin” are explained as differing materially; “‘ Suzy,” as a part of ourselves, being taken to mean our “ spirit,” and 205 ‘good or bad spirits,” dependant on health. More- over, SHIN, even as “ ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου," is not the active, intelligent “ Ling,” which, we presume, takes the place of the “mind” or Νοῦς, in “ Σοφία, Νοῦς καὶ Ψυχὴ" of Plato’s world. Now we read in Lao-Tsze (c. iv.), that Suis may lose “Ling,”—or Ψυχὴ, τὸν Nody— either by accident, or, as the Chinese say, from “old age”! What, then, remains of Surin to make it into “ Gop,” the Micuty, the Evertastinc GOD ? 2) According to Xenocrates (Stob. Ecl. Ph. i.2,29), there is:—@eés, in Heaven ;—@eo/ ᾽Ολύμπιοι, the hea- venly bodies; and—érepor ὑποσέληνοι δαίμονες ἀόρατοι, “other sublunary Δαίμονες, Genii, who are invisible” —the power of the air, as Porphyrius says: “ κατά- Takis —Ocdv μὲν πρὸς τὰ αἰθέρια, δαιμόνων δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἀέρια, ψυχῶν δὲ τῶν περὶ γῆν, αἰτίαν civae”—(ap. Iambl. de Μ. ο. viii. 5). This, too, agrees with Sury, as being also “ sub- lunary Spirits.” For they are every where in the atmospheric regions; and, as such, they are, as we have seen, always worshipped last of all,—Suane-Ts, in the Imperial Heaven, being worshipped first. 3) As θεός and θεοί were generally held to be ἀγαθοί — ἐπειδὴ πᾶς θεὸς wyabds” (Sallust, 6. xii.), the Greeks ascribed calamities, and other divine judgments, to that “irresistible,” (πανδαμήτωρ, Soph. )—“ unseen,” (δαίμων δ᾽ ἄϊστος, Pind.)—and “ intermediate,” (τοῦ μέσου γένος, Hierocl.)—agency between the gods and men—6o Saiwov;—which, being unknown and ill-defined (ἡ ἀόριστος δυὰς, Saluov—according to Pythagoras), 206 they alternately courted—* ἵλαος, ὦ δαῖμον, ἵλαος," (Soph. )—or dreaded, ‘al, ai, ai, ai δαῖμον, δαῖμον᾽" (id.), as either propitious or adverse ; “ Δαίμονά τ' ἠγάθεον, Aaluova πήμονα θνητῶν." (Orph. H. i. 31.) This δαίμων, or δαίμονες, were the agency, as well as the instruments of the justice of the gods,* who made over the wicked to “ Δαίμοσι κολαστικοῖς" (Sall. ο. xiv. ad. f.) for punishment; while as regards the good (Pyth. v. 164),— | “ Διός τοι νόος μέγας κυβερνᾷ Aaipov’ ἀνδρῶν φίλων" According to the Greeks, then, a man’s daily lot in life, | was either “‘ δαίμονος ἀγαθοῦ," or “δαίμονος κακοῦ, Sdcts.” (Creuzer, 5. iii. 776, sqq.) “Εἰ γενναῖος, ὡς ἰδόντι," said the stranger to Cidipus, “ πλὴν τοῦ δαίμονος." And “ ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐν τῷ δαίμονι (Cid. Col. 76, 1446). So also “ good fortune” was “6 δεξιὸς δαίμων" (Callim. καὶ τῇδε φῦναι χἀτέρᾳ" * Δαίμων γάρ τις μεγίστη τέτακται ὦ τέκνον, says Hermes (ap. Stob. Ecl. Phys. lib. i. 8, 52), ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παντὸς εἱλουμένη, πάνταπερ ὁρῶσα τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς γινόμενα ὑπὸ τῶν ἡ ἀνθρώπων. Καθάπερ οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς θείας τάξεως ἡ πρόνοια καὶ ἀνάγκη τέτακται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τέτακται ἡ δίκη, ταῦτα αὐτοῖς ἐνεργοῦσα. ᾿Εκείνη μὲν γὰρ κρατεῖ τὴν τάξιν τῶν ὄντων ὡς θείων ---Ηἰ δὲ δίκη τέτακται τιμωρὸς τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἁμαρτανόντων ἀνθρώπων, K.T-r. 207 Cal. C. 32); and “ bad luck,” on the other hand, was (Pind. P. iii. 62)— * Aaipwv δ᾽ ἕτερος ἐς κακὸν Tpéyrais” —— This, again, agrees best with Surn, which, we have seen (pp. 144, 151), is both “good” and “bad”; both served and dreaded. But it does not agree with SHanG-Tz, who like 6 Θεός, is always good; and like ὁ Θεός, also, is only feared and worshipped. There is also a coincidence between ἀγαθοδαίμων and κακοδαίμων, as applied to a man’s estate, and the fami- liar expressions “Sang,” or “ Shang-Shin,” mournful or wounded spirits, and “tsin-Shin,” bright or good spirits, etc. “Shin” is also used as a term of endear- ment, ¢. g., “ Shin-niu,” ‘“‘ divine maid,” “ Shin-seen,” etc., like “ δαιμόνιος" in 6. g. Odyss. xiv. 443, “ δαιμόνιε ξείνων," etc. 4) Those δαίμονες were not θεοί For ὁ Θεός, we have seen repeatedly, ‘“‘made them all”: “οὐκ ἀνθρώ- mous ἔδει καὶ ζῶα μόνα ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ θεούς τε Kal ἀνθρώπους, καὶ Δαίμονας" (Sall. c. xiii.), ete. In like manner, SHIN, in itself, is not even “a god,” much less “ Gop.” For we read in the Hwa-tseen (see above, p. 148), of “ SHIN-SEEN,” or “ Hill-genii,” who are eight in num- ber, and (like ὁ or ἡ δαίμων) both male and female. (Comp. the “ Pattinee Devi” of Ceylon, Uph. H. B. p- 54.) They, however, “ are not considered as gods, nor worshipped, nor have they temples erected to them,” says Dr. Morrison, Dict. vol. i. p. 70. 208 5) Since δαίμων was ἄϊστος, “hidden,” and dépurros, “indefinite,” the “agency,” δαίμων, was often iden- tified with the “agent” Θεός, who was equally hidden and unknown, and it was then mistaken for him. Thus, ¢.g., perhaps, Marcus Anton. (de seipso. lib. v. 8) says, ““ ἔξεστί μοι μηδὲν πράσσειν παρὰ τὸν ἐμὸν θεὸν καὶ δαίμονα Thus also, Ζεὺς ἀγένητος, who “κυβερνᾷ δαίμονα," is himself addressed as δαίμων (which is ποίη- μα τοῦ Θεοῦ --- Διός), by Cleanthes (H. in J. 14), “ οὐδέ τι γίγνεται ἔργον ἐπὶ χθονὶ σοῦ δίχα, δαῖμον," and in Il. a. 222, Homer calls all the θεοὶ νὸς. also δαίμονες. εἰς ἡ δ᾽ Οὔλυμπόνδε βεβήκει ‘ δῶματ᾽ és αἰγιόχοιο Ads μετὰ δαίμονας ἄλλους." This exactly suits “Sin.” For, as we have seen above (p. 155), and Le-ke (c. xvi.), although we read, “raise your thoughts to Heaven, ‘ T’HEEN tsei SHIN, and from Heaven to Surv,” yet the col- lective noun, ‘“‘ Surv,” does not here apply to any one in Heaven in particular; but it applies to Saane-Tx, and to his eight attendants and their satellites, col- lectively. Even in this passage, then, which seems at first sight to favour the advocates of Sar, Sam not only can not mean ὁ Θεός, but it does not even stand for θεός ; it honestly means only “ τὸ δαιμόνιον φῦλον," or, at best, the ‘Geol ᾿Ολύμπιοι." We are, we confess, really at a loss to know why the term, which even according to its stanchest advocate means ‘‘ genii, or demons” (or only “ deity,” Dict. i. p. 178), 209 and can only apply to the whole “plebs superim,” should be preferred to the term belonging exclusively to the Chief Ruler in “ Hwang T’heen,” or Imperial Heaven—aimdbs "Ολυμπος---ἰο SHANG-TE alone. But when δαίμων was assigned to any particular object, it then became a “‘personal” Aa/uwv—or “eds” —‘a god.” Does not this show how men, one and all, sought a “personal” god? Thus Οὐρανὸς παγγενέτωρ is also “ πανυπέρτατος δαίμων" (Orph. H. iv.); Φύσις, is “ἐ πολύκτιτος δαίμων" (ibid. x.)—Anpjrnp, is “ πολυώνυ- μος δαίμων" (ibid. xl.)—and Νέμεσις is ““πανυπέρτατος δαίμων" also (ibid. Ixii.), etc.; all, and the like of which, when once “ personified” after the manner of heathen nations, by being either worshipped under a visible, or represented in a material form, became, each—not “ὁ Θεός, which was One, alone, and above them all—but only “ θεός," “ἃ god,” or an “ἄγαλμα θεοῦ," aS, 6. g., ᾿Ανθρωπός τις, ξύλινον ἔχων θεόν---ἔῤῥιψεν εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος." (15. Fab. 128, etc.) Sophocles (in Euseb. Pr. Ev. lib. xiii. p. 680, d. ed. Col.) says to the point :— “ Eis ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν, εἷς ἐστι Θεός, Ὅς οὐρανὸν τέτευχε, καὶ γαῖαν μακρήν;---- * See Menand. fr. (Perinth. 3. ed. Cl. p. 148). “ Οὐδ᾽ αὐτός εἰμι σὺν θεοῖς ὑπόξυλος"--- ᾿“ἰ ὑπόξυλα κυρίως καλεῖται τὰ ἀγάλματα οἷς ἐκ ξύλων κα- τεσκευασμένοις ἐπιπολῆς ἐπελήλατο ἄργυρος ἢ χρυσός --- Hermog. ad not. 1. c. 15 210 Θνητοὶ δὲ πολλοὶ καρδίαν πλανώμενοι, ἸΙδρυσάμεσθα πημάτων παραψυχήν Θεῶν ἀγάλματ᾽ ἐκ λίθων, ἢ χαλκέων, Ἤ χρυσοτεύκτων, ἢ ἐλεφαντίνων τύπους. Θυσίας τε τούτοις, καὶ καλὰς πανηγύρες Στέφοντες, οὕτως εὐσεβεῖν νομίζομεν." For, as we have said, generally speaking, ‘ θεός" ap- pears to have been the “ personal agent,” inhabiting an unseen abode—oixov θεῶν waxdpov—in Heaven. Whereas “ δαίμων, aS “Ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου," Was the ‘ hidden agency, power, or energy,” through which “ θεός" wrought effectually in the eyes of men. Even the “ σκοτεινὸς Δυκόφρων" is clear on this point. He ad- dresses “ Aaipova” as the “agency” (Cassand. 281): °°) δαῖμον, οἷον κίον᾽ ἀϊστώσεις δόμων, "Epevopa πάτρας δυστυχοῦς ὑποσπάσας |” and “ θεόν" (ibid. 909), as the “agent” who “εὖ ῥέπει" (Asch. S. Th. 21) “ κῆρα, “δίκην δαίμονα,"--- “"Arrny δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλῃ κῆρα κινήσει θεός, Δυγρὴν πρὸ νόστου συμφορὰν δωρούμενος." But the “agent eds,” and his “active agency δαίμων," being both unseen and unknown, they were often also both taken one for the other. We find accordingly, that, in like manner as “ δαίμων" is both masculine and feminine, (even in Christian writers, ¢.g., Const. Apost. i. 7, 8, témeruid rap, orAeucn weet) according to circumstances, so is also θεός. For instance, in this passage of Lycophron (Cassand. 864),- - ae. ee hey! 211 [1 οὕνεκα θεᾷ θεός χέρσου μέγαν στόρθυγγα δωρεῖται κτίσαι." where “eds” is both feminine (like θεά) and mascu- line also, exactly after its original “ Drus,” in San- scrit. In this sense alone of “a god,” or “idol,” is Samy an equivalent for “ θεός." For Sumy is, we have seen, also both masculine and feminine. But the resem- blance goes no further. For the “ One Gop and Faruer of all, who is above all,” is always masculine, and singled out as such by the article ὁ. But Sam is of both genders. Therefore in this respect also, Sun is no substitute for Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ. Again, let it be well remembered, that Surn being a collective noun, means ὁ or ἡ δαίμων, of δαίμονες, OF δαίμονες, “76 δαιμόνιον," “ τὸ δαιμόνιον φῦλον," and more too, all in one. But we do not often find “ δαίμων still addressed as “ δαίμων, when it has assumed a material or bodily form: it is then called “ @eds,” “a god.” Whereas Surin, whether it be worshipped as the unseen “ ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου---ὁ Saiyev”—or under an ideal form, as “ Hwa-SHIN,” the “Spirit,” or ‘“ god of flowers” ;—“ Yue-SHIN,” “god or goddess of the moon”; or under a visible form, as “ Meaou-SHIN,” “the god or idol in the temple,” or “Kea” or “ Mun- SHIN,” the “lares” or “ penates” of the family,—is still called “Sury,’ whether as δαίμων or as θεός, OF even as “ θεὸς ξυλινός.᾽ But δαίμων, we have seen, is not “ θεός," although 212 “ θεός," When unseen, is sometimes addressed as “ ὦ δαῖμον!" For Θεός is “ a&yévyntos”— ὅς Οὐρανὸν τέτευχε," etc., whereas “ δαίμων᾽ is “ποίημα @cod”—inferior, like ’ “ Suin,” which, Ching-tsze (as quoted by Wen- thang, in his Com. on the Ch.-Yung, c. xvi.) says, “‘SHIN-chay Yang-che ling,” “ is the active energy of the Yang-principle.” This “Yang,” we have seen, is superior to the “ Yin”-principle. But both the “ Yin” and “ Yang” are subservient to T7HEEN, “ Heaven,” which, says the same commentator (ibid. ς. i.)—*i Yin Yang woo hing hwa-sing wan-wuh,” ‘ creates the life of all things by means of the five energies of ‘ Yin’ and ‘ Yang.’” (See below, p. 220, note.) Suzy, then, is an inferior agency in the formation of Nature. Yet, according to some, “Sun” is the only term in Chinese, which expresses “ θεός." (Shin v. Shang-Te, p- 8, sec. 7; and p. 10, sec. 8.) Granting, however, it may sometimes do for “ θεός," “a god,” when and how will it convey the real idea of “6 Θεός, 6 ἐπὶ πάντων, ὁ παντοκράτωρ καὶ μόνος δυ- νάστης" For, we see that “ SuIn-@eds” is not “ 5Η1ν- ’ We have shown, however, that “Sun” is “ἐ δαίμων;" and that “ SHIN-Saiuev” is sometimes also “ SHIN-Oeés”; but we'-see that ““ SHIN-Geds”” cannot always be “ SHIN-daiuwv.” Then, δαίμων. “τ per Genium, dextramque deosque penates Obsecro οὖ obtestor,—” which is which ? The writer of Shin v. Shang-Te (p. 11), therefore, ὙΠ 218 is quite correct in quoting Dr. Medhurst’s words that “Sur is comprehensive enough, and too much so”: and he might have added Dr. Morrison’s con- fession too,—that Surv is “ genii or demons.” For in the mouth of a Chinese, “GO SHIN,” by which by or TON, “My God!” is rendered in Dr. Morri- son’s version, is at least as comprehensive a prayer as that of Orpheus (ad Mus. i.) :— “ Zed βασιλεῦ----σὲ κικλήσκω ᾿Ηελίου, Mins θ᾽ ἱερὸν σέλας, ἄστρά τε πάντα — Καὶ μεγάλους Σ᾽ωτῆρας ὁμοῦ, Διὸς ἄφθιτα τέκνα" Μειλιχίους τε θεούς ----- Δαίμονά τ᾽ ἠγάθεον, καὶ δαίμονα πήμονα θνητῶν " Aaipovas οὐρανίους τε καὶ εἰναλίους καὶ ἐνύδρους, Καὶ χθονίους καὶ ὑποχθονίους, ἠδ᾽ ηἐριφοίτους |” The foregoing remarks, we hope, may tend to show,— {.—That, practically speaking, bs and so are ap- plied to Gop in Holy Scripture, not as “ generic” terms, common to Him with others, but to Him “specially,” as “ The Mighty,” “ The Worshipful.” —If not, why are those terms not always rendered by “a god,” and by “θεός, without the article ? I].—That, in general, Dn ἐξ is not used as a “ col- lective” noun, nor yet “as a remnant of poly- theism,” but as an intensitive expression of respect for bs and ox.—Ie not, then bs, noe, and DndN, would imply different persons; which is not the case. IjJ.—That since those terms apply to one and the 214 same person, they are rendered in general, not by “ Beds” and “ θεοί," “a god,” “gods,” or “ deity,” respectively, but by “ὁ Θεός," with the article; Gop. IV.—That 5x, Hox, DON, Θεός, Devs, and Juprrer, who is, as Valer. Soranus (in August. Civ. D. vil. ὁ. 9) says :— “ Juppiter omnipotens regum rerumque detimque Progenitor, genitrixque defim, deus unus, et omnis,” are not “proper” names, like (in one sense) “ JEHOVAH,” but are names of nature and office, of the “ One Supreme Being,” Gop, who is and was worshipped as Mighty, Father, Protector, Lord, etc. V.—That also in Chinese, “SHane-Tr” is not a “proper” name, but a “ common name,” used as a distinctive appellative of the “One Supreme Being,” worshipped as “ Ruler” by the Chinese, according to their own ideas. VI.—That ‘“ Suiy,” on the contrary, is a “ collective” noun, for “ Spirits,” which—tseih chih eul Shin- chay wei SHIN—“ are multiplied to the uttermost,” says Wen-t/hang (Ch.-Y. ο. xvi.); and thus cor- responds best to “7d δαυμόνιον φῦλον ἐν τῷ ἑνὴ πλη- θυνόμενον," to yr “ genii,” to the “ Nat-gods” of Burmah and of Ceylon, or to “ δαίμων, as “ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου," and sometimes to “ Geol ᾿Ολύμπιοι.᾽" VIl.—That since “Surin” can never be taken in a singular sense, except with an adjunct, like “ Yue- SHIN,” ** Meaou-SHIN,” etc., the “ Sui,” “ Spirit,” 215 or “deity” of the “ Moon,” or “idol” of the “temple,” etc., it only represents “ θεός" in that sense, and is not applicable to “ Θεός as ““ Παντοκρά- twp;” since “ gods” is the plur. of “a god,” and not of ‘ Gop,” who is One and alone. For SHIN is an inferior agency, like Sa/uev,—inferior to T’HEEN, Οὐρανός, which is identified with SHANG-TE, (like δ Dan. iv. v. 23, with wy v. 22, etc.) 6 Ὕψιστος,--ΖΕΥΣ -- Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ. XIV. We now come to the last, and, perhaps, also, to the most interesting part of our investigation; that is, to the application of SHIN, or SHANG-TE, to the rendering of the term “GOD” in Holy Scripture. The passages brought forward are taken, almost promiscuously, from a beautiful edition of the Bible in Chinese, in 21 vols. 8vo, printed at Malacca, in (the seventh year of Taou-kwang) 1828. It is, if we mistake not, one of the “old paths,” about which so much is said by a correspondent in “ Shin v. Shang- Te,” p. 19. Let us follow them awhile. I.—First, then, as regards ON bal 5 Gen. xiv. 20. trophy ΓΞ “ Blessed be the Most-High God.” Sam. a2x0rK ὙΖΠΓᾺ ‘Nata ‘“ Blessed be the Powerful in strength.” Arab. 216 Οὐ old! “the Powerful, the High.” Syr. Peschito, Taasso Jord} οσι yaz> “Blessed be God Most-High.” This is rendered in Chinese by Chih-Shang-SHIN, “ Most-High Suin”—relatively, of course, to all other “ Shins.” Thus, when Sun is used alone, as, 6. 9.» Gen. i. 1, it must necessarily convey the idea of a Suv (or god) inferior to the “ Chih-Shang-Sumy,” Most-High “Surin,” or “God.” That some such confusion is inevitable, is clearly shown by the ex- pressions familiar to every Chinese,—“ Shin-kiun,” or “ Choo-Shin” (as we find it in the Shoo-king), 7. ¢., “Lord over Shin’; the latter of which is a title or office, which is conferred by the Emperor on one of his ministers. So that in this Chinese Bible, Sumy, who created the Heavens and the Earth, is inferior, not in power only—(and who can adequately render the sustaining idea of ΤΠ) 28 ?),—but in rank also, to “chih-shang SHIN.” How much better to render “Ex,” “the Mighty God,” by ὅβηλνα- ΤῈ, who is above all, in power and strength; and. for troy ‘“Most- High,” to adopt (perhaps) “ Hwang-T’heen,” or in the very words of the Shoo-king, “ Hwang-T’heen SHANG- TE,” “ Imperial-Heaven SHane-Tn”; ὁ. ¢., ϑηανα- ΤῈ, “highest in the Heavens”; especially, as immediately after (v. 22) we read, YN) DYDY m3p “who owns the Heavens and the Earth.” This, as it is rendered in the Chinese, ‘ Chih-Shang-SHIN 'T’heen-Tih-che- Choo,” implies to any Chinese who has learnt to read, —not from books published by missionaries, but from his own classics,—nothing else than that ‘“ the Most- 217 High Sum” is alone “ Lord of Heaven and Earth.” So that plain “ Sur,” wherever it occurs, although he is said, like Viraj (Laws of Manu, i.), “to have made the world,” is inferior to “ Chih-Shang-SHIN,” as Viraj also is inferior to Brahma, from whom that inferior creator came forth. It reminds one of the Greek proverb,— “ Aaiwovas ἀπελαύνει ἄλλον ἄλλῳ." The Chinese, moreover, is a rendering of the English version, and not of the original, although it professes, in large characters, on the title-page, to be from the “ pen-wen,” “ the radical text.” Gen. xvii. 1, "I OyI “I am the Almighty God.” In this rendering of the original, either the force of “IY is impaired, or that of 7&8 is lost altogether. The LXX. omit "1%; and in this they are followed by the Ethiopic, Slavonic, Armenian, and Coptic ver- sions. The Samaritan reads ‘XP73A ‘XZMR ‘X34, exactly like the Arabic Alt poll “the Powerful, the Sufficient” (as if it had read, ‘TY αὐταρκής). The Peschito gives the Hebrew Jo\} aaa] bh? b} ΓΤ am God El-Shaddai.” The Chinese reads, “ tsuen-neng-che SHIN,” “ the SHIN of complete power” (Almighty). So that when “‘ Sain” stands alone, it must be “one Sun” ‘not so powerful as the “Sum of complete power.” This is self-evident. For it does not follow, that because “‘the Most-High God” conveys to our mind no idea of “superiority” over, but only an “ attribute” of, 218 “ Gop”—for that “God,” and the ‘ Most-High God,” imply to our mind one and the same Person,—it is so in Chinese. Far from it. For whereas we never had any idea of God apart from the “ only true God,” the Chinese have had, and have, every kind of idea of God, except a correct one of the true God, which is the only God we know. Their notions and im- pressions, therefore, must, as regards “ Gop,” be en- tirely different from ours. If, then, in order to express our “only true God,” we adopt a term which in their classical and daily language is capable of a multitude of different mean- ings, many of them inapplicable to our “ God,” what else can happen, but that the Chinese and ourselves be always at issue on the subject? and that the idea conveyed to them by us, through this distorted medium, be anything but the image of the original ? Clearly, then, if we take “ Sun,” and sometimes qualify it by adjuncts and sometimes not, when it is qualified by us, as in this case of “ tsuen-neng-che — SHIN,” it must convey an idea different from what - it does when it is not qualified by us,—that is, when it is left in the state in which it usually occurs in the Chinese classics. Since, then, when it is qualified, it must of necessity imply a different person from what it. does when it is not qualified, nothing remains but either to qualify it always, or never. If the term be “appropriate,” it may safely be qualified to convey a rectified meaning, if necessary; for it will then always imply the same “ person,” with only different 219 attributes. Thus “ ϑηλνα- ΤῈ," which, like “ Gop,” is one and not many, may be qualified without risk of error. If, on the other hand, the term be not appropriate, no qualification will do. Now, “ Sur” is, we have seen, “ἃ Host of Spirits,” “good and bad,” “ genii or demons,” τὸ δαιμόνιον φῦλον, δαίμων OF ψυχή with, or without vods—“ an idol,” “a god,” “breath,” and, may be, “a disordered stomach.” Can any qualification of ours ever make it into “WwW 5x, “tHE Miguty GoD OF VALOUR” ? In the same verse also, ΓΤ", “Jehovah,” is ren- dered by “ SHIN CHOO,” either “ godly Lord,” or the “Lord of Spirits.” A Chinese will understand there- by, either that this “ divine or godly Lord” is some worthy personage, like Yu (Shoo-king, i. 3), who was “Shing nae Shin jin,” “ἃ holy and a godly (θεῖος καὶ δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ) man” ;—or that it implies his office ;— or that this “ Lord of Spirits” is far higher than Sun,” Spirits, alone. What a substitute for “I am THAT I am,” “JEHOVAH”! Better, by far, adopt the name itself, as the Shang-haé translators have done, Yay-ho-hwah”; or even, perhaps, borrow it from the fancied Chinese authority of Lao-tsze, who in c. xiv., speaks of three properties of the Taou, “I, HI, WEI”; in which A. Rémusat and others have thought they discovered “ Jehovah”! (See Lao-tsze, ed. St. Julien, p- 46, sg.; and Introd. pp. v. vi. sgq.) This “ SHIN- cHOoO,” “Lord of Spirits,” moreover, must be a dif- ferent person from “ SHANG-SHIN,” the “ Most-High God,” who in Chinese stands, as regards “ Surv,” in 220 precisely the same relation as Suanc-TE does to ΤῈ alone, when this is applied either to the inferior Te’s, or to the Emperor. But rather “SHIN-cHOO” will be to a Chinese only as another name for the “ SHIN- KIUN,” or “ Prince of Shin,” Spirits, mentioned by Tai-Shang in the Kan-ing-Pien, as “ standing over the head of men, and writing down all their sins.” Such confusion is inevitable if “ Sum” be used for “God”; in which case it is made to represent ‘“ per- sonal” offices, which as “Shin,” Spirits, j=, τὸ dav- poviov, OF δαίμονες, it never can do. Nothing is left, therefore, but to invent new names for “ Jehovah,” “ Most-High,” etc. But that would be to multiply “gods.” On the other hand, much ambiguity would be removed, it appears to us, by rendering the idea of a “personal” Powerful, or High God, by the “ per- sonal” Β'ηλνα- ΤῈ, whose very title already tells that he is both “ Mighty” and “ Most-High”: and since he stands alone supreme,* his name may be qualified * The scholiast, on She-king (book v. sec. 8, od. 2) says, that “ SHANG-TE T’HEEN-CHE-SHIN,” —‘ Suane-Te is Surin of Heaven.” And Ching-tsze adds: “i ke hing t*he wei che T’heen; i ke choo-tse wei che Te.” In Kang-he’s Dict. (Nieou-dsi-hea, p- 35), he is called T’HEEN-SHIN, and T’7HEEN-CHOO, — Suin,” and “ Lorp” of Heaven; while the “some half-dozen” other Te’s (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 4) are thus mentioned by the same high authority : “ Woo-Te ' 221 by adjectives, as it often is in Chinese classics, with- out any risk of error or mistake. The force of bs, “Ex,” in such expressions as, 6...» NI) Os (Ex. xx. 5), in which the meaning of >, “Ex,” “God,” is:doubly felt by the side of ‘ jealous,” (in Arabic, js! old! “the Powerful, the Jealous”), is quite lost in the Chinese “Suzy.” Even admitting that “Shin” might stand for “ God,’ what is the jealousy of “ Suun,” “ genii or demons,” which is only “fiendish spite,” to the “righteous zeal” for good of the Miguty Gop ? And in Deut. vii. 21, 810) 511} Oy, “the great and terrible God,” (in Arabic «ὁ κα} -Aadl od, “the Mighty, the Magnificent, the Terrible” ;—words which even “sound” great and terrible), the force of bs, Et, is, of course, utterly lost in Chinese—as, indeed, in English too. For even “God” is no ren- dering of 98. It conveys the idea of the “ person,” though not of his attribute of “ power” and “ might.” But not a vestige of either the “person,” or of his Shin-ming,”—“ The five Te’s is a theological defini- tion.” When Confucius was asked the name of the five Te’s, he replied: “ T’heen yew woo hing: kin, mo, shwuy, ho, t’hoo, fan shih hwa-yuh i ching wan-wuh, ke Shin wei che woo-Te,”—‘' Heaven has five elements of operation; metal, wood, water, fire, and earth, where- with he transforms, supports, and perfects all things. Those Sur are the ‘five Te’s.’”’ 222 “attributes,” is left in “Sut,” although both one and the other are found in “‘ SHane-Tr.” In the sublime passage, Deut. xxxii. 4, the force of by in MOS Os, “the Mighty in Truth,” is also lost, except in French and in Arabic,. which reads,— νι 40 lll, “the powerful in” (or “ possessor of”) “ Truth.” Dwell awhile on the immutability of purpose in “MOS Oy,” and then turn to its sub- stitute in Chinese, “ Shin shih-che SHIN,” which, to an educated Chinese, is a parallel in words and meaning with this passage of Tai-Shang—(and al- most every man in China has read the Kan-ing-Pien, which is sometimes distributed among the people by rich Chinese, as an act of piety),—“ Keih-SHIN i Shuy,” “the (Shin) Spirit of happiness will follow you”: and “ Heung-SHIN i suy-che,” ‘ the (Shin) Spirit of destruction (or of adversity) will follow hard upon the thought of evil.” In Job xxxvi. 5, we read, DN/! ny 32 by, “the Mighty is great and glorious, and He will not despise (me).” Arab.—pale!| all! (comp. dle Ue), “the Magnificent, great and glorious God” is meager and “powerless” with ‘Surin’; whereas it would afford comfort to a poor Chinese to believe that the “Mighty” Ssane-Tz Most-High, looks down upon him from Heaven, and that He will not despise him though he be one of the “ black-heads,” or common people. In Psalm x. 11.—The wicked saith in his heart, by mov, “the Mighty hath forgotten”: where 4 os \ i Pee eS ee Ae a ἐν ee 2) ee εἶν SB ate 223 was doubtless adopted by the Holy-Ghost in apposi- tion to ΓΘ), as implying the “power” dreaded by the wicked, who flatters himself that that Power hath forgotten him, and he is safe. But in Chinese, whereas by, “Ex,” would exactly apply to Suane- ΤῈ, it loses much of its meaning, and all its force, by being rendered “Suin.” And this applies equally to every case in which ὰξ is, if we may say, used design- edly; but, evidently, in no way whatever rendered by “ Sun ; as, 6.9.5 in (Psalm 1.1), 133 77) pony by, “The Mighty, the Awful God, the Eternal Onr, hath spoken, and hath called the Earth,” etc. In Isaiah xlv. 14, for instance, we read,—Ja JN poy DES Ν })S) by. Not only is the force of Os lost in Chinese, but by saying “Surely, in thee, land, there is Sumy,”—out of thee, no Surn “ Spirits,” it says what is not true; for Sun is, or are, every- - where. (Ch.-Yung, c. xvi. etc.) But it would be both true and intelligible if it were said of Suane-Ts, worshipped as the true God. Even in such passages as Judges viii. 46, where ON as “ god” only, is said of an idol, ϑηανα- ΤῈ would be much more appropriate than Surw. For ϑηλκα- ΤῈ being, like by, the name of “the one God,” it would, in this case, be given in precisely the same way to a false “Suanc-Tz,” as “Ex” is to a false ‘** Ei”; whereas this can not be said of “ Sun” with the same justness, since there are more “ Shins” than one, and they, too, are both good and bad. This is so obvious, that when En, meant for 224 “God,” is connected with a particular place, as, 6. g., Gen. xxxv. 7, ‘‘ The God of Beth-el,” the translators take very great liberties with the sacred text. If consistent with themselves, they should translate ema Oy by “shin-kea,” or “Shin-Meaou SHIN,” i. 6... “Shin of the Shin (El) House (Beth), or Shin- temple”; or, “ Peti-li-che SHIN,” the “Suin” of Beth- el, taking “ Bethel” asa proper name only, apart from its intended meaning. But what else can that con- vey to a Chinese, than the idea of either the patron “Shin” of a particular village, or, ‘ Meaou-SHIN,” which is in every mouth, for the “Shin” or “idol” . of the temple,—may be in the next street? The translators, however, have cut the matter short; and they have sunk the beauty of the passage, and the force of the words Sena S, into the proper name J-li-pe-ti-li”! How comforting to a Chinese convert! True, the “ Authorised Version” here, reads ‘“ El- — beth-el”; but it points to the original Hebrew, “the Mighty (and faithful) God of Beth-el,” who had been with Jacob in Padan-Aram, and ever since. We are led to wonder what the “ pen-wén,” or “ original texts” of the translators, can have been, besides the English Version, and perhaps, also the Vulgate. This is, however, little, to what we read in Chinese, Numb. xvi. 22. The searching words, “Ὁ Mighty God!” aarbz5 nina nds Sy—* Awful God of the Spirits, for all flesh!” are rendered by—*“ SHIN yu! fan jow shen-che-ling-che SHIN yu!” (a verbal translation of the Author. English Vers.) “Ὁ Shin! 7 τῷ 5 Pe ee ee Lemar See ee Pe eee ‘ 225 O Shin of the ‘Ling’ of all flesh-bodies!”—contrary to the plain meaning of the Chinese words. For here ““SuIn” is said to be of “Line.” But Lao-tsze teaches (c. iv.) that “ Live” is of “ Sun”! and that, moreover, “ Shin” may lose that “Ling”! For “Shin,” when old, loses “Ling,” say the Chinese. The translators may, possibly, have held the doctrine of Lao-tsze in extreme contempt. Since, however, they find themselves compelled to adopt the same words that Lao-tsze used, it ought assuredly not to be in a sense opposed to that which those words have had, even before the days of Lao-tsze, and for the last three thousand years, or more. In Joshua iii. 10. “ Ye shall know that the living God Ἢ by is among you.” In the Chinese trans., “hwa-SHIN,” the “ living-Shin,”—then are the other “Shins” dead? This cannot be, for Confucius speaks of their “*’he-wuh” entering into the very essence of things, and as being manifested, in man, by the breath of life.” Then what is the “living Shin,” if, as we see, all “ Shins” have life in themselves, though not exempt from’old age? But speaking of “Gop,” it is perfectly true that all other “gods” are either “dead” or false; for they are “not Gop.” Deut. XXxll. 21. In 1 Sam. ii. 8. TIM MYT bs ‘2, “The Lord is a Mighty God of knowledge,” is rendered by “SHIN- CHOO, wei chi shih-che SHIN,” “ Shin Lord, is Shin endowed with knowledge.” It is exactly as if we said, “SHIN-KIUN,” 7. ¢., “the Shin-Prince’’ is, 16 226 “keih-SHIN,” “the ‘Shin’ of prosperity,” etc., as in Tai-Shang (K.-I.-Pien, towards the beginning, and at the end). In2 Sam. xxii. 32. nim “hap dyn, “Who isa Mighty God, save the Lord?” In the “ Old Paths,’— “9 SHIN-CHOO wai, shuy wei SHIN hoo?” “ Besides the Shin-Lord, who is Shin?” If there is no “ Shin” but the “ Shin-Lord,” what is “Shin” when it stands alone? We might easily weary our readers, by following up this investigation. We will only once more advert to the fate of bs, “Ex,” the “ Mighty God,” at the hands of the friends of “‘ Surv.” And this, in no less a passage than the sheet-anchor of our faith, Is. vii. 14.—Syney toy np) 18. ΠΡ pn ποῦν mn “Immanuel ! the γέμμδοι Gov’ with us! therefore will we not fear, though the Earth be removed!” The Chinese follows the Authorised Version, in read- ing at vil. 14, and vii. 8, “Immanuel;” and at vill. 10, “God is with us.” There is no sufficient reason for that difference; though the Vulg., LXX., Syr., Arab., and Targ. Jonathan ‘do not all agree together in the reading. Be that as it may, “‘ Gop with us” is rendered by “SHIN kao go teng,” “ Sun with us.” What sort of comfort, or of consolation, can it possibly give a Chinese, to be told that “Sain” is with him and his? He _ has learnt, almost with his mother’s milk, that Confucius said “Sun” are above and all around him (Ch.-Yung, c, xvi.), “like a flood in abundance”! And if a a ’ ἣ a πον τὰς aa Oo wi 7 i 4 ; Ε 997 “with us” mean “in us,” he knows, too, full well, ~~ what is the difference between his being in “sang- SHIN,” or in “tsin-SHIN,” in “ low” or in “ good spirits”; for even his breath, which is “ ching-SHIN,” the “showing forth of his Spirit,’ is quick or slow, © according to the mood in which he is! So much for by and “Snr.” We now come to consider how far Sar is a fit substitute for nox or Dvds, Exoan or ELonm. XV. In Dan. xi. 36, 37, we have the three terms, pry, and TON, Os, each intended, no doubt, to be taken in its own meaning. We do not think that, were it possible, it would be advisable, to have more than one term in Chinese to express “Gop,” especially as the term already in use, Suane-Tr, conveys the idea of “ Power,’ “ Might,’ and “ pre-eminence,” implied in “ Ex” and “ Exonm”—not a vestige of which is left in Surv. But the expression that the king would speak mar- vellous things poy by by against the “ Mighty of Mighties,” rendered by “ Wan-SHIN-che SHIN,” “ the Surn of ten-thousand Suis,” can only make a strange impression on the reader’s mind. It must lead him χὰ 228 to think, either that the “‘ Sun” he is trying to single out from the rest of the “host of Sum” is no more than his “ fellow-Sutns,” or else that he exercises a sort of command over that host. In this case, what amount of power has “ΘΕΙ͂Ν when standing alone, for “Gop,” in the Chinese translation? Would there be the same confusion or ambiguity, if Saanc-TE were used instead of “Surin”? In like manner as Sur fails to render by Et, so also it is, we see, no better substitute for M78 or prby, except in so far, and no further, as SHIN inspires a Chinese with a certain dread or fear. For SHIN” is, τὸ δαιμόνιον, δαίμονες, “ Spirits”; but Exo- HM, like Ex and Exoag, is a “personal” God. The meaning inherent in “Suzy,” therefore, must put in- superable difficulties in the way of its ever becoming an appropriate term for “Gop” in Holy Scripture. For instance, Gen. i. 1. ‘In the beginning, 873 4 ὯΠ pby, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” ᾿ Sun, “Spirits,” cannot create. It is the action of 4 a “personal” God. This idea, which is incongruous with “Surin,” is perfectly intelligible with SHana- Tr,” who, it is true, does not “ create” ;—for the Chi- nese appear to believe the Heavens and the Earth to have been uncreated (Lao-tsze, c. vii. com.), and sometimes not (ibid. c. xxiii.)* But he “commands” a > ζ a ρος . — * Yet Kang-he (Dict. Nieou-dsi-hea, p. 35) says: “(@’HEEN-SHIN yin-chuh wan-wuh-chay yay.”—“ As 7 ὲ a ὧι να δ μι ως ἀν δ Αμαν, »" hoy Cie 229 (Shoo-k. i. 5)—and he is “ feared” (ibid. iii. 1)—he “bestows or withholds his blessing” (ibid. iii. 3)—he has “a heart or mind,” and “looks into the thoughts of men” (ibid. iii. 3)—and “ treats them accordingly” (ibid. iii. 4)—he “orders the affairs of kingdoms” (ibid. iii. 11, 12; iv. 1)—is above “ Sun” (ibid. iv. 1)—(for “Surin” are requested to assist the Emperor in fulfilling his responsibilities towards; Suane-Tr, ibid. iv. 5)—and he “punishes in his anger” (ibid. iv. 6; v. 5)—ete. Gen. iii. 5. DOND oOMM, You will be like (LXX. θεοί, Vulg., Slav., Eth., Engl.) “ gods”—(Syr., Armen-) “ God.”—(R. 5: Jarchi, A. Ezra; Samar. Arab.) “angels” ;—(Chald.) “princes.” “Old Paths” —“ sse-SHIN,” like Sumy. We presume that to Surin of Heaven bringing forth all things,” Seu explains Sun thus: “'T’HEEN-choo heang khe i kan wan-wuh; kaou yen yin-chuh wan-wuh,”— The Lord of Heaven sends down a Spirit of life to animate all things; therefore it is said that he brings forth all things.” Here we have both T’heen-Shin, and T’heen- Choo, proposed by the Bishop of Victoria (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 19), applied in classical Chinese to ΘΗΛΝΟ- ΤῈ ; and also Sum (comp. Wen-T’hang, in Ch.- Yung, c. i.) like “76 δαιμόνιον φῦλον," holding an inferior place as “ διακονικόν" to SHANG-TE, “τὸ θεῖον ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ προϊστάμενον dv.” (Iamblich. de Myst. sec. i. c. 20.) ‘ 230 Sun is here meant in its classical collective sense of δαίμονες, Or θεοί; since whenever ‘One God” is ex- pressly stated (as in Dan. ii. 26; St. Mark xii. 29; Gal. iii. 20; 1 Tim. ii. 5; St. James ii. 19, etc.), the “Old Paths” do violence (as it appears to us) to the Chinese language, and affix yih, or yih-ko, to SHIN— * one,” or a “certain Sain.” But if “Sum” is to be taken for θεοί in this passage, is it to mean “ gods” also whenever it stands without yih or yih-koP? Would not ὅηανα- ΤῈ be better,? Ibid. ν. 9. DYSON mY. “The Spirit of God,” as rendered in the “Old Paths,” “SHIN-che fung,” the “wind of Shin,” is, we regret to say, peculiarly ob- scure. What is it? Why not, at once, follow the Chaldee, and render it ‘a wind from before God”? Or with Philo Jud. (De Gigant. p. 58, ed. Tchn.), * Λέγεται δὲ θεοῦ πνεῦμα καθ᾽ ἕνα μὲν τρόπον ὁ ῥέων ἀὴρ ἐπὶ γῆς, τρίτον στοιχεῖον ἐποχούμενον ὕδατι." Or with A. Ezra, “ἃ wind sent by the will of God,” as 5. Ephrem says (in Gen. p. 8): bso Lom Joa: thoo oo Luo} :Lloo bya oo}, σιὰγ--- a wind thus blowing ac- cording to the purpose for which it had been created” (to dry the waters). Or the translators might have followed other authorities, and might have rendered “the Spirit of God” by a still much more Chinese idea, namely, by “ Ta-fung,” ‘‘a ty- phoon,” in short, on the chaotic waters! How much better would it not be to adopt even here, at the outset, the “personal” God ὅ'ηλνα- ΤῈ, and with R. 8. Jarchi, to contemplate the “ Spirit of God”— | | 231 jpry pepe ov2—“as a dove fluttering, or brooding over her nest” (an image found in Rig.-V.i. 2; xiv. 4, “vayo na vasatirupa”), and then take “Sun” to — mean what it is—‘‘a Spirit,” an “emanation” from Snana-Tre; and thus render this passage by “ 60] SHANG-TE-che-Shin gaou-chung yu suy-meen yay,” “ the Spirit of God moved to and fro upon the face of the waters”—of the waters, first called “ Nara”: —— nara iti prokta, apo vai Narasunava: | ta jadasyayanam purvam, tena Narayana smrita: | | “as being at first created by Nara, the Eternal One; who made them His first abode, and thence took the name of Narayana” (Manu-Sanhit. c. i.). It is evident that the translators took the “ Spirit of God,” in this solemn opening of the Creation, to mean “ wind”; from the fact that they render the “ Spirit of God,” in, 6. g., Ex. xxxi. 3, by “ SHIN-CHE LING,” the “spiritual efficacy” of Sary. This phrase is classically correct; and, therefore, it is, in words and in meaning, precisely the reverse of Numb. xvi. 22. The translators, therefore, contradict them- selves entirely. One reading only can be correct; the other, therefore, is wrong. For as “Ling is of Shin” (see Lao-tsze, c. iv.), “Shin cannot be of Ling,”* which is said to be the case in Numb. xvi. 22. * Kang-he’s Dict. (Seuh-dsi-chung, p. 93), says, “Shin Ling yay,” “Shin is Ling”; and explains “Ling” to be,—Yang-che-tsin-khe yue, “Shin”; Yin 232 All this confusion proceeds from the use of “ SHIN” in our sense of “‘ Gop,” which it never had. Again, Gen. vi. 3, “ And the Lord said”— send 3 pbyd DSI myn, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man,” is rendered by “Wo SHIN che fung,” “ My wind of Shin,” etc. What idea can this possibly give of the original, or, indeed, of any thing? “ My wind of Shin,” for “my Spirit”! It is painful to read the Word of God thus handled. But when one che-tsin khe yue “Ling.” The spiritual essence, or “pure breath” of Yang (the creative, bright prin- ciple in nature) is called “Shin”; while the spiritual essence of Yin (the obscure, passive, female, priti- ciple), is called “Ling.” From whence it is clear, that since “ Ling” belongs to a principle opposite to that of “Shin,” when Kang-he’s Dict. further says, “Ling Shin yay,” “Ling is Shin”; Shin is here to be taken as an adjective, meaning “ spiritual,” as’ opposed to “ material.” From this authority alone, it is clear that fan jow-shen-che Ling che Shin yu! (Numb. Xvi. 22) is absurd, and cannot possibly be understood by a Chinese.—Compare with the Chinese notion of the soul, etc., the words of Hermes Trismegistus (Poemand. c. x. 13, ed. Parth.), “Wuyi δὲ ἀνθρώπου ὀχεῖται τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον᾽ ὁ νοῦς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ, ὁ λόγος ἐν τῇ ψυχῆ, ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι, τὸ πνεῦμα ἐν τῷ σώματι;" and ibid., 17, “ ἔλαβεν οὖν (νοῦς) ὥσπερ περιβολὴν τὴν ψυχήν. ον νεῶν τον en or Re 2338 is further called upon to receive such renderings, without asking any question for conscience-sake, under the heavy penalty of ‘‘disregarding the Word of God altogether” (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 10), then private judgment rebels in good: earnest. All we. can say is, that, if such a translation of “‘ My Spirit,” said by God, rests on good authority, it must be one of which the way-faring men in the ‘Old Paths” have alone the secret. Likewise, in Deut. xxxiv. 9, 235 AN, “ Spirit of wisdom,” is rendered in the Chinese τόνος by *‘ Chi-che-fung,” “the wind of wisdom.” We do not find in Kang-he, any thing to sanction the use of “fung” for “Spirit”; although it says that ‘“fung,” “wind,” is the result of “ disagreement,” or of “anger” between the Yin and the Yang principles! In 1 Sam. x. 10, however, this same DON AM, is rendered, “ SHIN-che Shing-SHIN.” The holy Sum (Spirit) of Sumy (Spirit or “God,” as meant here). Thus the same word, “Shin,” is taken in two dif- ferent senses in a sentence of four words!’ One is meant for “Gop”—the other for God’s Spirir! [5 it not hard upon the poor Chinese, to give them such riddles to make out? But in 1 Sam. xvi. 13, 14, the same “ Spirit of the Lord” is rendered again differently : “‘ SHIN-Choo-che SHIN-fung,” “ the divine wind of the Lord of Spirits”; while in v. 28,--- ony, “the Spirit of God,” is freely translated (as also in v. 13, 14) by “Yew SHIN-che go SHIN,” “ from the evil Shin (Spirit) of Shin (Spirit)”! So 234 that within a few verses, the same word, “ Sutn,” is by the translators held out to the Chinese as a sub- stitute for “Gop,” and for His “Spirit”; and that, too, both good and bad! No wonder that “ Spirit” should have given the translators so much trouble. It becomes in their hands almost optionally, “fung,” ling, khe, go-Shin, “ Shing-Shin,” etc.,—“‘ wind,” “ intelligent and active soul,” ‘animal spirit,” or “breath,” “ evil Shin,” and “holy Shin,” ete. All this confusion of ideas is the result of choosing a term which means “ Spirits,” in order to express a “personal” God. Would it not be more intelligible, because more correct, to sub- stitute “‘Suane-Tr” for “Sain”? and to translate “ Spirit” in all those, and similar instances, by “ Shin” or “ Ling,” according to the context, as “ Spirit emanating from God”? If those combinations appear so incongruous, what can a Chinese gather from, 6. g., Psalm xlii. 9,— go tsiang yu SHIN, go pwan-chay yen. “1 will say to Sumy (Spirit) My rock?” In Psalm Ixxiii. 26, the English (not the Hebrew) is rendered SHIN, go sin- che li! “Shin! strength of my heart!” while the “Hebrew reads, *gab-ny, “Rock, strong-hold of my heart.” But in Psalm Ixxviii. 35, the Chinese ren- ders OWS, “their Rock,” by “ pwan-shi,”’ “ Rock of stone.” There is a very sudden transition from a “ Spirit” to a “ Rock,” and that of “stone,” too. But not so to ON, or py, the Mighty and Most. High Suane-Tr. 235 We will not weary the few readers we may have, with further investigation of this kind. It only now remains that we should mention one or two instances in which DION, “God,” governs a verb in the plural. For instance, in Gen. i. 26, where God says,— DIS mvp, “Let us make man,” etc., the “Old Paths” read, ‘ Yew go-teng tsao jin-luy choo go-luy siang,” ‘ Let me-kind (us) make man-genus, like the image of me-genus,” (us). This is a verbal rendering of the English version, and not a literal translation from the Hebrew. For though “Yew” sometimes means “to let,” it is never, we believe, used in Chinese, as a sign of the impera- tive. Then, “ Go-teng,” “ me-genus,” said by “ Sum”, what else does it mean in Chinese, than the Sur Spirits, WF genii or demons (even according to Dr. Morrison), mentioned by Confucius in the Ch.-Yung, and in the Shoo-king, as innumerable? But whether my refers to the plurality of persons in God, or to “ Angels” in company with Him,* certain it is that *‘so-teng” can only refer to a host of “Shin” or * As the Samaritan, which in Gen. ix. 6, reads, 399 ον ‘AMI Ασα (God) made man after the similitude of Angels; and in Carm. Sa- marit. xii. 18, 19.—Chald. 7x, “ Gods.”— Arab. Whine dete dGjull ἔμ (God) “made him after the similitude of Angels ;—to rule”—(endued with power). 236 “ Spirits.” It would seem better, assuredly, to adopt SHane-Tr, the term for a “personal” God, which is ready to hand. And since “Go,” in good Chinese, means both “I,” and “we,” it might be left as it is, in order to avoid the ambiguous affixes, “teng” or “uy,” which, in connection with “Sun,” a collective noun, must tend to a confusion of ideas, if not to favour polytheism in the mind of a man already in- clined to it. In Psalm exxxviii. 1, where pry is generally rendered by “ Angels”; Syr. Ja\so $0,0; or, as the Chaldee reads, 8*3°7 bap, “before the judges,” the Chinese has, tsae choo SHING-che ts’heen, “in the presence of all Shins”—which must lead to a mis- conception in the reader’s mind. As also in Psalm Ixxxii. 1, where “ Surin” standeth ko SHIN-che ‘chung, ‘tin the midst of Shins”—of the “ host of Shins,” ete. - In Psalm Ixxxii. 6, we read: “ eul-teng nao SHIN- luy yeou ΘᾺ] chung nae chi Shang-che-tsze pei.” “ You are Shin-genus (gods), and you all are (son-class), sons of the Most-High.” This passage seems of itself to call for the use of “ SHanc-Tx,” who, as we have seen, has a “ yuen-tsze,” “august son” upon earth ;— τοῦ yap καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. Whereas, as it now stands in Chinese, either the Most-High is not “Sur,” or “Sun” Spirit, has sons,—a statement which is doubtless by no means clear to the Chinese reader. (See also Gen. vi. 2, where “ Shin-che tsze pei,” “ the sons of Shin,” must be equally ambiguous. ) Lastly, in 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, where phy ory, Pee ace oe ΠῚ “ΨΥ “ΜΝ 237 “‘oods ascending,” refers to the ghost of Samuel, the translators have erroneously adopted “ Kwei-Shin,” which means nothing else than the “ Souls-and- Spirits,” which are constantly worshipped (see Ch.- Yung; Shoo-king, and Le-ke, etc., throughout) ; whereas they probably meant “kwei” alone,—which means the “soul of the departed.” We see that we cannot depart from the “ usus et norma loquendi,” without defeating our own ends, by creating endless confusion in the reader’s*mind. Unless, indeed, we can, like the author of ‘ Delphi Pheenicizantes” (p. 21, sg.), find the secret of show- ing that two opposites are identical, when he tries to prove that Joshua and Apollo are one and the same,— Joshua because he “ saved” the Israelites, and Apollo because he “ destroyed” the ’Anakim! XVI. Let us now examine briefly, how far “Sum” can supply the place of Θεός or ὁ Θεός. St. Matt. 1. 28. μέθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός. “ Old Paths” read, “ SHIN Καθ go-mun,”—‘“ Shin with us”; whereas the Shanghaé translation has, “tseih SHANG-TE go Καθ yan,”—“ Shang-Te with us”; much better, both in sense and grammar. 238 Ibid. iii. 9. δύναται ὁ Θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων,--- SHIN neng yew tsze ko chi,” etc.—‘ Sun can from these stones,” etc. (translated from the English). It is much better rendered-in the Shanghaé translation: “ SHANG-TE neng peen tsze chi wei.”—‘' SHANG-TE can make these stones to become,” etc. Ibid. 16. εἶδε τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ Old Paths,” “SHIN che shing-SHIN.”—‘“ the holy Sam of Suin”; (same confusion in St. Luke, i. 47.) Shang- haé v., “ SHANG-TE-che SHIN,”—“ the (Shin) Spirit of Shang-Te.” Ibid. iv. 3. εἰ vids εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘Old Paths,” “ SHIN-che tsze,”—“ the son of Shin” (Spirits >). Shanghaé y., “joo SHANG-TE tsze,”—“if thou art the son of ὅηλανα- ΤῈ" : more grammatical, and borne out by the Shoo-king, v. i., as we have already seen. Ibid. v. 4. διὰ στόματος Θεοῦ, etc. ‘Old Paths,” “ Chuh SHIN-kow-che yen,”—“ (Every) word coming or walking out of the mouth of Shin.” Shanghaé yv., “ SHANG-TE so ming,”—‘ What Shang-Te has com- manded”: much better Chinese, and more intelli- gible. Ibid. v.10. Κύριον τὸν Θεόν cov προσκυνήσεις. “ Old Paths,” “Choo eul SHIN,” etc.—“‘ the Lord thy Sun,” etc. Shanghaé v., “ Choo eul-che SHANG-TE,?— “The Lord thy Suanc-Tre”: much better. For in this place, Sum is clearly one of the ‘“ Host of Shin,” qualified, or singled out by “ Choo,” “ Lord.” Where-~ as Suanc-Tr being one and alone, the epithet ses ea ΤᾺ ΨΥ itn Ale eta ee | ETT hie Te Peer aS ORE oe ee Sa eC) det es ae a eer re δ κε ΤΥ oh id bell a eee 239 “ Choo” creates no confusion of idea; for ‘“ Choo,” Lord, belongs already to the “‘ Supreme Ruler.” Ibid. v. 8. τὸν Θεὸν ὄψονται. “seeing” agrees better with Suane-Tr, a personal God, than with “ Sumy,” a Spirit (>, by nature invisible). Ibid. 9. viol Θεοῦ κληθήσονται. Shanghaé v., “ SHANG- TE tsze,” - sons of SHANG-Tr”: classical, and better than “ Old Paths,” “SHIN-che tsze pei,” (son-class) “sons of SHIN.” 1014. 34. θρόνος ἐστὶ τοῦ Ocod,—suits better the “Supreme Ruler,” Suane-Txz, than the collective and indefinite noun, ‘“ Surv.” Thid. vi. 33. βασιλείαν τοῦ Ocod,—agrees also better with “Smane-Tr,” as “throne” does, than with “Surn,” “ Spirit.” Ibid. viii. 29. ἸΙησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ SHANG-TE tsze,»—" son of SHane-TE”: classical, and perfectly intelligible; since the phrase, “ SHANG-TE yuen tsze,” “ the chief son of SHANnG-Tx,” is found in the Shoo- king. Ibid. ix. 8. ἐδόξασαν τὸν Ocdv,—“ they gave glory to SHane-Tz,” the “ Supreme Lord,” is more natural than “ to Shin.” Ibid. xiv. 33. ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ vids εἶ ov. Shanghaé v., “ Chin SHANG-TE tsze,”—“ truly, thou art the son of SHane-Tre”; readily believed, though, perhaps, not understood, “ Verily thou art a son of Sun,” “a Spirit,” will startle, and rather shake than win the heathen’s belief. 240 Ibid. xv. 3. τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Shanghaé yv., “ SHANG-TE keae,”—“ the commandment of the ‘ Su- preme Ruler’”: ‘“‘Suanc-Tx,” is assuredly more to the purpose than, “the commandment of SHIN” (>) Spirits or genii). : Ibid. xvi. 16. ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. “ Old Paths,” “hwa SHIN-che-tsze,”—“ son of the living Shin.” Are there any dead “Shins”? The Shang- haé v. renders, “yung sing SHANG-TE tsze,”—“ the son of SHanG-TE who lives eternally”: there is no ambiguity here. | Ibid. xix.17. Ei μὴ εἷς Θεός. Classically rendered in the Shanghaé v., “ Wei SHANG-TE θὰ] e,”—“‘ only Suane-Ts, that is all”: very well. In “Old Paths,” “‘ Besides Shin, there is no good”; no rendering of the Greek. Ibid. xxii. 16. τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Shanghaé v., “SHANG-TE Tao.”—“ the way of Suane-Tr.” Al- though this phrase does not, that we are aware of, occur in classical Chinese, yet “ T*heen-Tao,”—“ the way (or Providence, or Rule) of Heaven,” is so con- tinually forthcoming in the koo-wén, that “ the way of Shang-Te,”—“ Hwang-T’heen SHANG-TE,” will be readily understood. Not so, the “way of Shin” (Spirits). Ibid. 80. ὡς ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ SHANG-TE-che sze,” —the ambassadors of ϑηλνα- ΤῈ: very natural. But what is the meaning of the “ Old Paths,”—“ the ambassadors of Shin” (Spirits) ? Thid. 87. ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου. We must * ton ΤῊΣ Ὃ # 7a ὩΣ te a ἣν 241 love a “person.” ὅηλνα- ΤῈ, therefore, is more ap- propriate than “ Sur.” Ibid. xxiii. 22. ὁμνύει ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. “The throne” of ‘“ SHane-Tx,” is natural. For, as THEEN- che-SHIN, he rules in Heaven, and is for that reason styled (Schol. She-king, book v. p. 24) T’HEEN-che CHOO-TSE,—“ the Lord Governor of Heaven.” But the throne of “ Surv,” what is it, but the stand on which kea-SHIN—“ the household god”—is seated? Ibid. xxvii. 46. Θεέ μου, Θεέ μου, ἱνατί με eye. “Old Paths,” “ Go SHIN! Go SHIN!” is quite objectionable, if not offensive. We have seen that “ Shin” means Spirit,” “the Spirit in man.” So that “ Go Shin!” “My Shin!” can mean nothing else than “ My Spi- rit!” especially when said at the last extremity. Whereas, “ My Suanc-Tx!” is an exclamation liable to no ambiguity. St. Mark, iii. 35. ποιήση τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ The will of the Supreme Ruler, SHana-Tx,” is classical, and more intelligible than the will of a Spirit, Sam. Ibid. v. 7. υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. “ Old Paths,” “ chih Shang-SHIN-che tsze,”-—‘‘ son of the Most-High Shin.” We have seen above (p. 216), that this must create confusion. But there can be no ambiguity if SHanc-Tr be used, for He stands alone. Besides, “ ὕψιστος" is not true of “ Sur,” which +’he-wuh, enters into the very nature of created beings. Whereas, T’heen, yew san-chih-san T’heen; yuh-hwang- ta TE-CHOO tsae tsing-T7HEEN.—“ As to Heaven, there are thirty-three Heavens; and the Perfect, 17 242 Imperial, Great Ruler, Lord, dwells (in the highest of them) in the azure Heaven” (Dr. Morr. Dict. i. 577.) Ibid. xi. 22. ἔχετε πίστιν Θεοῦ. Shanghaé v., “Tang sin SHANG-TE,”—“ You ought to believe (or to have faith in) Suane-Tr.” The “Old Paths” translate the English verbally,—“ have faith in (or to) Sur.” Ibid. xvi. 19. ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The right hand or the left, is more applicable to Suane-Tr, sitting upon his throne, in his kingdom, than to Sam, “¢ Spirit.” St. Luke, i. 6. ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, may also be said more appropriately of a “ personal God,” than of Sui, “ Spirit.” Ibid. xi. 20. ἐν δακτύλῳ Θεοῦ. If “finger” is re- tained, it can only be with “Suanc-Tr.” Shang- haé v. has “ Show,” “the hand,” for “power.” The ‘Old Paths,” more freely, “i SHIN-che che,”—‘ by the express will of Surv.” Thid. 28. τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ The word of SHANG- Tx,” is better than “the word of Surv.” St. John, i. 1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ Λόγος, is remarkably well translated in the Shanghaé v. by “Taou.” Τὺ is unintelligible in the “ Old Paths,” which read “ yen,” τὸ λαλεῖν, for ὁ Adyos. Ibid. iii. 84. δίδωσιν ὁ Θεός τὸ πνεῦμα. Shanghaé v., “Suanc-Te gives him the Holy-Spirit” (Shin). “Old Paths” read, “ Surn gives him the Holy-wind” » (fung)! . ἘΞ ee ee ee ee { oe ee ee aren, See eee Ae al 243 Ibid. 36. ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, agrees better with SHANG- ΤῈ than with Sui. | Ibid. iv. 24. πνεῦμα ὃ Θεός. This is a passage likely to test the relative merits of Sumy and Suane-Tr. Shanghaé v. reads, naturally and clearly, “ SHANG- TE nae SHIN,”—‘ ὅβανα- ΤῈ is Suv.” The “ Old Paths,” “SHIN wei Ling,’—‘“ Shin is Ling”; which would have been more classically said, “Shin Ling yay”: in the very words of Kang-he’s Dict. (art. Shin; and above, p. 139; and at p. 150), where we saw that Shin may lose his spiritual life or soul, “ Ling.” Ibid. v. 18. πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε τὸν Qedv—icov ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ Θεῷ, are expressions which agree better with the “personal” Suanc-Tr, than with the “ideal” SHIN. Ibid. iv. 29. Maoh λελάληκεν ὁ Θεός, is the act of a “personal” God. “Tur Spirit,” however, “ said” to Philip and Peter (Acts vill. 29; x. 195 xi. 12). “A Spirit” may ‘“ have spoken” (Acts xxiii. 9), and even “cried” (St. Mark ix. 26). But a person “ speaks” as “ Tur Spirit” gives “ utterance” (Acts ii. 4), or “moves” him “ to speak.” Ibid. x. 33. ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν, is more applicable to Suana-Tx than to Sun. Ibid. 34. ἐγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε, cannot but bring a smile on the countenance of a Chinese, who reads in the ‘Old Paths,” “Isaid” ye are “ SHIN-pei,” a class of Sur (Spirits). But he will understand at once the reading of the Shanghaé y.,—“‘I said, tsaou wei 244 SHANG-TE hoo!”—“ Ye are of the same order as SHAnc-TE.” Ibid. xiii. 3. ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθε, καὶ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὑπάγει, is plain as regards “Suane-Tr”; for in the Hiao-king (c. ix.), we find that Wen-Wang, phei SHANG-TE, “associated with Suane-Tr” during his life, until after death, he, phei-heang, “was deified in his presence” (see also Dr. Morr. Dict. ili. 589); but it is unintelligible as regards “ Surv.” In Acts xiv. 11, the excellence of Saane-TE over SHIN is very apparent. They said: of θεοὶ ὁμοιωθέντες ἀνθρώποις. “Old Paths,”—“lee-SHIN,” the order, series of Surin, Spirits; whereas Shanghaé v. reads, “choo SHANG-TE,”—“ Shang-Te’s,” which exactly renders οἱ θεοί in the Scriptural sense; since, ac- cording to the Shoo-king, She-king, Hiao-king, Le-ke, and the Sse-shoo, to have believed in more “ SHANG,” Supreme “TE” than one, would have been as hea- thenish, as to believe in more than one “ Θεός, is in our own eyes. Rom. i. 7. ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, is more applicable to him who has a “ yuen tsze,” or “chief son,” than to “ Sury,” “Spirit.” And the expressions,— δόξα Θεοῦ ;---βθέλημα Θεοῦ ;---δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ;—rd χρηστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ;---προσωποληψία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ :;--τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ ;---ἄδικος ὁ Θεός ;----ἀνοχὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ;---ἐπωγγελία τοῦ Θεοῦ ;—ayarn τοῦ Θεοῦ ;---πιστὸς ὁ Oeds,—and the like, are far more intelligible when said of the “ personal God,” Suane-Tx, than of “ Suv,” Spirit. But what are those expressions in importance to these, the key- uss eS 4 ‘ 245 stone of our Holy Faith :— ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ" (2 Cor. iv. 4)—* εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου" (Col. i. 15)—and “ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ" ( Heb. i. 3) —‘ the express image of His Person”? where “ SHIN-che siang,” ‘‘ the image of SHIN,” or “ wo-hing SHIN-che siang,” “‘ the image of the immaterial (dopd- tov) SHIN,” would have scared Confucius. Whereas he would have been prepared to hear it said of “ SHanG-Tr,” whom he worshipped as an invisible ‘person,’ whose “ yuen-tsze,” first-begotten son, he also knew personally. In Rev. xi. 13, and xvi. 11, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, is rendered i the “ Old Paths” by T’HEEN-che-SHIN, and by T7HEEN-SHIN. But this, in Chinese, means either collectively—1) ‘the whole senate of celestial gods,” or singly—2) Suane-Tr, and—3) the Sun. We saw above (p. 220, note), out of the She-king, that ὅηλνα- ΤῈ is T7HEEN-che-SHIN. And in Kang- he’s Dict. (art. Shin) we read, T’HEEN-che-SHIN, tse” hoo JIH; JIN-che-SHIN, tse hoo YUE,—‘“ that the ‘Sum’ (Life-Spirit) of Heaven resides in the Sun, and that of man in the Moon.” The Sun is, for that | reason, called Tae-Yang, “the Great Yang”; and the Moon, Tae-Yin, “the Great Yin.”* Very much like * Kang-he’s Dict. Mow-dsi-chung, p. 19, says,— **VYin-yay—Tih δου yay; Ts’he taou yay; Chhin ἴδοι yay.” “The Earth, the female sex, and inferiority, may be called Yin.” See also Dr. Morr. D. i. p. 581. 1 | Ι] “4 246 the Egyptian idea (Hermes, ap. Iamblich. de Myst. sec. vill. 3), that ἔστι δὴ οὖν καὶ ἄλλη τις ἡγεμονία Tap’ αὐτοῖς τῶν περὶ γένεσιν ὅλων στοιχείων, καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς δυνάμεων, τεττάρων μὲν, ἀρσενικῶν, τεττάρων δὲ, θηλυκῶν, ἥντινα ἀπονέμουσιν Ἡλίῳ. καὶ ἄλλη τῆς φύσεως τῆς περὶ γένεσιν ἀρχῆς ἥντινα Σ ελήνῃ διδόασι. Both Yin and Yang, however, are subservient to T’7HEEN-che-CHOO- — TsE,—“ the Lord-Governor of Heaven” SHanc-TE (above, p. 220, note; and p. 241), who “heang,” sends them down from Heaven to animate and to work out Nature. * The Ethiopians, accordingly, sacrificed boys to the Sun, and girls to the Moon (Heliodor. Aithiop. L. x. p. 465, ed. 1630). + This is, we believe, the origin of jf, Sumy as “expansion” ( Shin) of 7, She, in the sense “of “light from Heaven” (Kang-he, and Dr. Morr. Dict. art. She and Shin), ὁ, ¢., from the Sun,-who as Tae-Yang, chief source of light-and-life Spirit, was styled CHOO-JIH, the.“ Lord Sun” (Le-ke, ο. x. mae But as in India, so also in China, the Sun, “Giver of Life,” was worshipped as in a measure wae: to the One “ Paternal, Protecting Heaven” (in India, Inpra, 7. g., T’7 HEEN-CHOO, SHANG-TE, in China), who, in that respect, is held superior to the Sun. Thus, in Egypt, they said,—@eds ἀρρενόθηλυς dv > ΄ , ῳ a a ᾿ "--ἀπεκύησε λόγῳ ἕτερον νοῦν δημιουργὸν---θεὸν τοῦ πυρός--- (Hermes Tr. Poem, i, 9)---τὸν ἥλιον δημιουργόν (Ib. κει SM ν, —o διὰ». ε ! Ps ‘ Ζ ΨΩ ΝῊ ΝΑ Ὁ ΡΠ ΠΝ eT 247 T’HEEN-che-SHIN, then, said of the Sun, is dif- ferent from T’HEEN-che-SHIN said of SHANG-TE, and is inferior to him. For in Chinese as in Greek, Θεὸς μὲν ὧν ἐντι---ἀρχὰ καὶ πρῶτον,---δαίμων a ψυχὰ, δαιμόνιον δὲ τὸ σῶμα (ὁ κόσμος) καὶ τὰ τούτω γε πάντα, δι’ ὧν οὕτω 'διαιρὲν, Θεὸν καὶ θεῖον, καὶ δαίμονα καὶ δαιμόνιον (Onatas in Stob. Ecl. Phys. lib. i. ὁ. 2, sec. 89). Clearly, then, Suin, though it be the best part of Yang, is yet but one of the two principles which are inseparable in giving existence to Nature. And as such, SHIN is but a part of Him with whom alone is “the fountain of Life”—one half only of “ Brahma stripunlinga:” which is masc. and fem. as “ Creator”; and neut. (sarvagatam Brahma) as δαίμων,---οὐ “ Jupiter, pro- genitor genitrixque defim”—of DIU-S, Deus, Θεὸς, ** ἀρρενόθηλυς ὧν, ζωὴ Kal φῶς ὑπάρχων᾽" (Hermes Tris- meg. Poem. ὁ. i. 9, seq.). Sun, therefore, is no equivalent for Θεός, ὁ Θεός, Gop, either in meaning or in dignity. And T’7HEEN- CHE-SHIN, even in the “ Old Paths,” can not be taken for anything else than for Suane-Tr, the Most- High. in Cheremon, Cory’s fr. p. 287). But in Mesopotamia, where the worship of the Sun probably began, he was by. or “ul, “the Mighty God”; and there, his name WHY, told also the nature of the special rites of his worship. (See Targ. Hier. Gen. xxvi. 10; Ley. xviii. 14, 20, etc.; and Lib. Adami, i. 212.) 248 XVII. The above are a few examples only, taken from the translation of the Bible into Chinese, which is generally known as the joint work of Dr. Milne and of Dr. Morrison. They are a few clods of the “old ~ ground on which they stood”—a few steps only in the ‘old paths” which we are told to follow (see Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 19),—may be, at the peril of our life. No “new inventions” will satisfy the reverend cor- respondent, who is quoted as an authority, for he τ᾿ thinks “the old is better.” The “old” is indeed Ἵ ‘“better”—but which? For Suanc-Tx is the oldest. His worship dates as far back as.B.c. 2356—(we do not exactly know , what took placé in China before that time),—when ᾿ Shun offered, jyrst uy yu SHANG-TE “a special 4 sacrifice to SHana-Tr,” and also to keuen-SHIN, “the Ἵ host of Surin”; but to these only after he had wor- : shipped the seasons, hills and rivers;—and last. of a all. (Shoo-king, book i. ο. ii. Canon of Shun.) It is, therefore, a very modern, and also, we fear, a dangerous “invention,” to put the “ aptote”-Suun (as in the ‘ Old Paths”) in the place of— 1) by, “the Mighty,”—2) TON, “the Awful, pe 3) pry, “the Majestic” Gon. ue 249 4) Θεός and ὁ Θεός, Gop, and Κύριος, Lord,—5) θεός, “ta god,” and—6) θεοί, “’ gods” or “angels.” Ἶ 7) Πνεῦμα, “ Spirit,”—of Gop (1 Thess. iv. 8), and ~ that too—8) holy. (ibid.),—9) good (1 Sam. x. 10),—10) evil (ibid. xvi. 14, 16),—11) of man (Ecel. iii. 21),—12) Hable to faint (Ezek. xxi. 7), —14) of beast (Eccl. iii. 21), 15) Πνεύματα “ Spirits”—of angels (Heb. i. 14),— 16) of just-men (Heb. xii. 23),—17) of devils (Rev. xvi. 13, 14) which are—18) unclean (St. Matt. xii. 43). 19) πνευματικός (Gal. vi. 1),—20) ἅγιος (St. Mark, i. 10)—21) θεῖος (2 Pet. i. 3). 22) probably ἄνεμος, since SHIN-fung, Shing-fung, and Shing-SHIN, are used, it seems, indiscrimi- nately for Tue Hoty Guost.* And lastly, in the place of —23) πνεῦμα, 7. 4., φάν- τασμα, a “ Spirit,” “ ghost,” “ goblin,” or “ phan- tom” (St. Luke, xxiv. 37; St. Mark, iv. 49). Is it not evident, then, even to the warmest advo- cates for Sutn, that a term which assumes in their hands such protean shapes—from “ The Mighty Gop” to a “ghost or phantom,” inclusive—is thereby, a rendered an unfit substitute for ὁ Θεός, the One and only true Gop? For, it will be granted that— Ty, TON, pry, and Θεὸς, were applied jirst ΟΠ Shing-SHIN also reads “holy gods,” in Dan. iv. 8; and “ Holy Gop,” in 1 Sam. vi. 20, etc. 250 of all to the only Gop. Or did the worship of One Gop, grow out of the worship of “many gods”? Those terms became “ generic” only when, in process of time, they were applied by catachresis, to inferior objects of worship. As Philo (de Somn. p. 464) Says: “ὁ μὲν ἀληθείᾳ θεὸς εἷς ἐστι---οἱ δὲ καταχρήσει 4 γενόμενοι πλείους, Which “sic fraudibus suis obduxe- Ἶ runt humano generi tenebras; ut oppressa veritate, summi ac singularis Dei nomen in _ oblivionem veniret,’ says Lactantius (Epit. c. xxviii.). For Θεός ““ ἀρρενόθηλυς av” 18 “ πρῶτος"; and θεοί, θεαί, θεά, and θέαινα, like dei, dea, diva, devi, are “‘after- thoughts” of comparatively modern date.* And, * A clear proof that the worship of Gop dete- riorated more and more, as it fell lower from the Unity of the Godhead. (See, e.g., St. Aug. de Civ. D. lib. iv. c. 11, ete.) Not only did deva-s, divus, θεός, “Sa god,” become daevas, demon, in Zend., in Pers. “ div,” Arm. “tev” or “tev,” Edd. Icel. “tiv,” Mod. Icel. “ dif-il,” a “dev-il” (or evil “ dev’), al- though derived from the “ Father of gods and men,” INDRAGNI—DIU-S; but we find the same depre- ciation of merit in the plural number of even inferior objects of worship. Thus, for instance, δαίμων, as (Lat.) “ Genius” (Arab. > “ genn”), is rather “good” than “ evil.” The Arabic translator of “Tabula Cebetis,” therefore, renders « δαίμων" and 7 “" δαιμόνιον," not by yy, but by UCL, ηκ Angel” (pp. 11, 55, ete., ed. Salmas.), as if a “ guardian 251 although in Rabbinical Authors we find the fem. pl. mins, “* goddesses,” as a term of contempt for the. ““ gods” of heathendom, yet in Biblical Hebrew there is no feminine for Os, FN, or pry, Gop, who has nothing in common with “ gods” and “ὁ soddesses”; for they are by x. “not Gop” (Deut. xxii. 21). ody, ND mom ody, (Jer. ii. 11) — un φύσει οὖσι Θεοῖς" (Gal. iv. 8). II.—?N, FPN, pnby, and Θεός, then, are not applied to Gop as “generic” terms; as if He were “one” of many “gods,” and on a par with them. But they are each given Him asa “special” “ indi- vidual” appellative, which was His ere it sank to any one else. For “gods” is the plural of “a god”; it cannot be the plural of “Gop,” who, though He be Turee IN Onze, is yet alone, and has neither dual nor plural. It follows, then, that— IlJ.—Since Gop has no identity whatever with “a god” and “ gods,” the assumption that “Sum” is a fit substitute for 6 Θεός, because it is a “ generic” term for “God, gods” (Shin v. Shang-Te, pp. 1, 5, etc.), necessarily falls to the ground. “Gop” and “goods” are not of the same genus, for he says of Himself, MTS WS TIT a τὰν Taw” (Ex. iii. 14); ‘p> Da Ody THY pyr Sy ΘΝ 5 Angel,” (Gw> κι... Whereas “mischief,” rather than “goodness,” predominates among the plur. .,-, or “genii,” ‘“ δαίμονες," (deemones,) which became in Ethiopic δα Ὁ: “devils.” 252 —‘‘ for I am the Mighty, and there is none besides; I am the Majestic Gop, and there is no One like Me” (Is. xlvi. 8). We do not, therefore, want a “ gene- ric” but a “specific’—an “ individual” term for Him who is One and alone of His kind, SIN MIM 5 nada iy ps odyn,.—“ for Jehovah He is Gop Himself; there is none besides Him.” (Deut. iv. 35; Ps. lxxxvi. 10; Is. xxxvii. 16, etc.) ‘“ Neque enim illa (Dei) sublimitas,” says St. Cyprian (de Idol. Van. v.) “potest habere consortem, cum sola omnem teneat potestatem.” But— IV.—Snurn is both a “ collective” and a “ generic” noun; and it can not be restricted by any definite article, which does not exist in Chinese. Clearly, then— V.—the only substitute available in Chinese for the “generic” θεοί, “ gods,” when this is restricted to one individual by means of the article, ὁ Θεός," * The use of the article with Θεός varies in different writers. For instance, Pindar, a “ pious” poet for his time, scarcely ever uses the article with Θεός, either as “ Deus summus,” 7. ¢., Ζεύς; 6. 4.) “ Θεοῦ poipa,” ‘‘ God’s providence,”—“ Θεὸς ἅπαν ἐπὶ ἐλπίδεσσι τέκμαρ ἀνύεται," etC., OF aS ““ τινὰ θεὸν," €.9., ** θεὸς γενέ- σθαι," etc. Whereas Hermes Trismegistus, almost always uses the article with Θεός. This seems to argue a later date for his writings; and to justify Casaubon in bringing the Poemander down from the times of Moses to those of the early Church. 253 must be a “special” or “ individual” term, applied only to one Being, and that, too, the highest object of worship in China. That term is Suane-Te. And if it be argued, that according to some Chinese philo- sophers (6. g., Choo foo-tsze) the Tae-Keih, or “ first cause,” is higher than SHane-Tx, we reply, that Tae- Keih is not an object of worship. And, that it is only owing to ignorance on the part of the wor- shippers of Suanc-Tr, that they admit a higher prin- ciple than the highest object of their worship. This only requires to be rectified by teaching. ϑηλνα- ΤῈ, once adopted for Θεός, ὁ Θεός, Gop, and Him alone, there will be no difficulty in providing, according to the context, suitable terms for θεός, when used in the generic ‘sense of “a god,” “ gods,” that are “not God.” We are inclined to think, therefore, that the Shanghaé translators might have rendered “your goddess,” in Acts xix. 37, by “your tutelary deity,” “eul shay,” more literally, than by “your SHAne-Tx,” as they have done. For in translating the Word of Gop, we are to give the sense or intention of the inspired author—. ¢., the “ literal,” and not the “ verbal” meaning of the sacred text. We are to render the Hebrew and Greek idioms into idiomatic Chinese, and not into expressions of our own, quite foreign to that language. It is then, assuredly, a great, if not a fatal mistake, to jumble into one in the translation, both Gop, ““who is Gop alone,” and “ gods,” that are “ not Gon.” As if Gon, “besides whom there is none else,” 254 and “a god” and “ gods,” that are neither “Gop” nor “gods,” was a “ genus” like to “man, a man, and men,” all made by Gop “of the same blood,” and born of the same man ! And yet upon this the advocates of “ Sain” “ feel rather confident that Shin will, before long, convey to the Chinese mind what Θεός did to the Greeks, and Deus to the Latins, and God to the English,” ete. (Shin v. Shang-Te, p.8.) What will it be then? —in Greek θεοί or θεός, always without the article “75 ἄρθρον τὸν Παντοκράτορα δηλοῦν," as Clemens Al. says?—and in Latin, what? “quicunque Deus,” as— « Olim truncus erat ficulnus, inutile lignum, Quum faber, incertus, scamnum faceretne Priapum, Maluit esse Deum. Deus inde ego”— (Hor. Sat. i. 8.) or is it not rather ‘“ Diespiter” ? namque— —‘ Valet ima summis Mutare, et insignem attenuat Deus,” Obscura promens.” (Od. i. 34.) For the manifold aspects of “Surin” in the “ Old * This acceptation of “ Deus” for “ Deus summus,” like Ζεύς, appears a strong proof in favour of the terms ‘‘ Deus” and “ Aets=Zeds” having had the same origin. If not, and if so be that “ Deus” is derived | from DEVaA-8, ‘“ Divus,” and not from DIU-S, then : oe ἢ τι hs: ie ib πον ae Ἃ pate ee ae oy- ἡ «πὴ z i Αγ ee 2 ΝΣ ΩΝ Oe ΝΞ 255 Paths” do not suit “‘ Deus,” according to St. Cyprian, who says:—‘“‘ Nec nomen Deo queras, Deus nomen est illi. [lic vocabulis opus est ubi propriis appel- lationum insignibus multitudo dirimenda. Deo, qui solus est, Dei vocabulum solum est” (de Idol. Vanit. γ. ed. Routh). And as regards “Gop” in English, to join together the “ SeLr-ExisTEnT,” “ Erernat OnE” (above, p. 47), with “a god” or “gods,” the ‘work of men’s hands,” is, in very deed, to make a “ genus” in which,— —velut egri somnia, vane Finguntur species, ut nec pes, nec caput uni Reddatur forme.— Spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici?” Yet a “genus” of this kind is to represent the one personal Gop of the Bible, bs, pdx, ὁ Θεός ! Since, however,— ViI.—Sum is, even by the showing of the “ Old Paths,” far better rendered by δαίμων, etc., than by θεός, the fact of the insurgents (Shin v. Shang-Te, p- 5) using Suanc-Te for the “ Supreme God,” and “Sun” for “gods” in general, only shows that they speak and write consistently with the idiom of their _ there is no “Gop,” but only “a god,” in the poor Latin, which has one disadvantage in common with the Chinese—a great deal of confusion from want of an article. 256 own language. But it no more favours the advocates for “ Surv,” however much they may wish it, than calling Ζεύς, ““ ὁ πρῶτος δαίμων," proves δαίμων to be Ζεύς. SuHanc-Te being one of the “Spirits” or ‘ sods” worshipped by the Chinese, is styled by them T’HEEN-SHIN. But since he alone is “Supreme,” he alone also is worshipped as T’HEEN-CHOO-TSE and TY HEEN-TE, “the Lord or Ruler of Heaven” (schol. She-king v. p. 24, vi. p. 3). He, like Ζεύς, is Sau = Saipov; but “Sum” is not SHane-Tr, 2. 6... not “specially” ὁ Ὕψιστος, any more than δαίμων is “ spe- cially” Zets=6 Θεός. VII.—So far, then, the form of religion of the in- surgents has this advantage over that of the wor- shippers of Surin alone,—that it admits of “One Supreme God,” which the latter do not, since they worship “Gop” “in every thing.” For— a) Sun, in Chinese, is applied to the “ deity,” only because as Ling of the Yang principle, it is, as the Mandchou Dict. explains it well, “An-i gengiyen fergouctchoun-be,”—“ the bright and wonderful ele- ment of Yang.” And Kwer-Suin is also commonly adopted for “ deity,” as representing the Ling of both the Yin and of the Yang principles. But this “ bright” vital principle, Confucius says, t’he-wuh, eul puh ko i (Ch.-Y. c. xvi.), “forms a part of the entity of things, and cannot be separated from them.” Wen- thang (Ch.-Y.c. i.) and Kang-he (Dict. art. Shin) declare, that this “ bright, vital” agency is “ heang,” “sent down” by the “Lord of Heaven,” Suane-Tr, = λας 4 3 j ᾷ 4 q L Ἶ ᾿ 257 to give life to the world; the insurgents probably believe that; and in their creed, “Sum” holds his proper place, which is inferior to SHANcG-Tz. But— ὁ) If “Suanc-Tr” be deposed from his throne in the thirty-third Heaven by the worshippers of “Sux,” and “Sur,” a very motley group indeed, be raised in his stead, then “ Surv,” as that “ bright,” “vital” principle, no longer ‘‘ comes down” from the “ Lord of Heaven,” to animate Nature; but it becomes both “ the agent” and the “agency” at once; and Nature is no longer the work of a Creating Gop, but every visible object becomes a part of the deity embodied in it. Wen-t’hang explains the above passage to that effect, thus: She ke wei wuh-che-t’he, eul wuh so-puh- neng i yay,—‘“ This Yin and Yang (Kwet-Sum) is t*he {flesh and bones, part and parcel) of wuh, or existing beings ; and these are wuh (living, being), by Kwer- Sin being inseparable from them.” If we do not altogether mistake the Chinese text, we do not see how such teaching can lead to any other result than to Panturism. But, “ Si mundi animus Deus est,” says St. Augustine (De Civ. D. iv. 12), “eique animo mundus ut corpus est—quis non videat quanta im- pietas et irreligiositas consequatur? Nolo omnia dicere que possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem sine verecundia non possunt.” So long as the Chinese nation exists, and the Chinese language is read and spoken, so long also will SHANG-Tr continue the “Supreme God” of China; as Ζεύς and Θεός, both of like import, were in Greece. 18 258 Owing to the chequered fortunes of the Greek na- tion, and to its manifold dialects, the Apostles, and before them the Septuagint, followed the philo- sophers, who having to choose one of two identical terms, Ζεὺς and Θεός, both “agents,” chose the one most in use—@eds. They did not choose the “agency” δαίμων, although it was “ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου." But in China there is no choice between two identical terms for the same Person, Ζεὺς and Θεός. The choice lies between the “agent,” ὅηλνα- ΤῈ, and the “agency” Sum; between Ζεὺς a8 Θεός and δαίμων, or τὸ δαιμόνιον. Much, therefore, depends on this choice, which rests on the interpretation given by those who translate into Chinese the words “ Πνεῦμα ὁ Oeds,”’—whether | “Gop is Spirit”; or “Spirit is Gop.” But, in our humble opinion, it would be easier to convert the worshippers of Ζεύς, as St. Paul did, than those of δαίμων, to the knowledge of the “ One True Gop.” We cannot, therefore, but agree with a writer quoted in Shin v. Shang-Te (p. 5), that “plain com- mon sense is all that is needed,” but, in order to come to—as it appears to us—precisely the opposite conclusion to his own. For it does not, as he says, require “ much depth of learning,” to see, however, that a “ generic” term, like “ Surv,” does not of itself define the “ species” or “individual”; that δαίμων, or τὸ δαιμόνιον, is neither “6 πρῶτος δαίμων," nor “ θεοί" ἐν nor yet every Spirit Gop, though Gop is a Spirit. We conclude, therefore, from the showing of the advocates for “Sum” themselves (unable as we ” ὁ Θεός, Pe oS ee kee ΩΝ Mas ' 259 are to discover any other reason), that the choice of that term is by them made a matter of “ con- science” (Shin v. Shang-Te, pp. 10, 15), principally from want of a far higher authority in translation— that is, correct idiom and etymology. __ : Still, that “conscientious adherence to Sur” on their part is the less to be accounted for, as the very makers of the ‘Old Paths,” and leaders of the host of Surin, whom we are charged to follow (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 19, ete.), do not scruple to call him by no better names than “a deity,” and “ genii or demons,” as Dr. Morrison does (in Dict. i. pp. 178, 804); while he pays homage to ὅηλκνα- ΤῈ, whom he styles “God,” and even “ Supreme-God” (Dict. i. Ρ. 163, and iii. p. 539). Nay, Dr. Milne even went so far as to inscribe on the title-page of the edition of the Bible from which the above quotations are taken: SHIN-THEEN SHANG-TE k’he-she kew wei chaou-shoo,— The Old Testament, the revelation of SHane-TE of the divine Heaven.” But, if SHIN-T’HEEN here, means “Gop,” as it does in 1 Cor. vii. 40, then this title (if we understand it aright) will read, in Dr. Milne’s own words,—“ The Old Testament, the revelation of Suane-TE who is Gop.” 260 XVIII. Φ “Quo nunc certamina tanta?”—“@ ταλαίπωροι" says even Jocaste to the rival factions of Sun and of SHANG-TE,— ‘ri τὴν ἄβουλον, ὦ ταλαίπωροι, στάσιν γλώσσης ἐπήρασθ᾽ οὐδ᾽, ἐπαισχύνεσθε, γῆς οὕτω νοσούσης, ἴδια κινοῦντες κακά; “Why quarrel among yourselves, O luckless citizens, and leave the state to perish?” Earnestly,—Why do Christian missionaries among the heathen, dispute among themselves about the God they preach, and place His Church in peril ? It is the concourse at Ephesus over again, but without a town-clerk to make the peace. Meanwhile ~ the tumult increases, though not much to the “ godly edifying” of Chinese converts, who know “ who ’s who” of Surn or SHane-Tx, and therefore stand looking on, amazed at their teachers, who cry,—one: “Down with ‘Suane-Tre!’”—another: “Up with ‘ Suin-SuHanc-TrE!’”—“ No!” says his fellow, “ Great is ‘ Surn-T’HEEN!’”—“ Never!” shout a good many all at once, “ Great is Sain of China! Suny, for ever, Sain!” while a small knot of men try to raise a voice of “ Audi alteram partem”! but in vain,—for the assembly is confused, and some, it appears, do not quite know wherefore they are come together. 261 Then, one Demetrius (we believe), inveighs against the Bishop of Victoria (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 19), for his having proposed “ T’HrEn-Suin” and “ 'T’HEEN- Cxoo,” as a “ compromise, in favour either of Hea- thenism or Popery”; instead of respectfully reminding His Lordship, that both those terms are, as we have seen, classic synonyms for “Suanc-Tr;” and that he might as well adopt “Suane-Tr” at once. But that reverend friend of Shin v. Shang-Te (p. 10), though “ a man of peace,” is nevertheless “ resolved to renew the contest.” He therefore makes ready to battle in earnest, and with great ardour he utters his war cry,—‘‘ No surrender!” “ No peace with — Pope or Pagan!” It is well he should follow the advice of Rabbi Judah B. Tamai (Pirke Av. V. 20):— “935 Ty ὁ ΤῊΝ ps5 my “ND No -Sa¥D ΤῊ "222 bp ‘poywaw “Be strong as a leopard; swift as an eagle; fleet as a roe; and valiant as a lion, to do the will of thy Father who is in Heaven:” and also “wise as a serpent,” but “harmless as a dove,” says our Lord and Master. Let that zealous missionary, by all means buckle on his harness in the name of Gop ; then take in hand “ the sword of the Spirit,” and we trust, also, hide a stout heart under the “‘breast-plate of righteousness.” For his errand re- quires it; and even Pindar reminds him that— ἐς ὁ μέγας κίνδυ- νος ἄναλκιν οὐ φῶ- τα λαμβάνει" 262 But as he goes forth to battle, let him not forget to “be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace”; and not carry on his preaching among the heathen, as if he were on a crusade against them. “No surrender!” says the reverend writer.—No! none to the enemies of our Lord. But as to those we make for ourselves, how often do they not prove better than we are! Let us, therefore, understand against whom we fight. When the soldiers of Christ look less to themselves, and more to the Captain of their salvation, many of their own enemies vanish from before the first encounter; for then the cause is God’s—not man’s owni—and the day is won. If true to their calling, the knights of Christ rally round the standard of His Cross, and not under their own colours: if they follow Him, and not their own way, and fight in His name and not in their own strength, they must overcome, and proclaim victory from the stronghold of their foe. For the battle is the Lord’s. He leads His men by day, and watches over them by night. If they faint, He comforts them. If in delay they doubt, He bids them be of good cheer. And if in their last struggle, they stagger at the sight of death, He prays “that their faith fail not”; while His hand, riven on the Cross for them, holds out “a crown of life”; and His gentle voice whispers to them, as of old to His veteran saint,— ’ApSpitou, Πολύκαρπε!".---“ Quit thyself like a man, my son! thy reward is great!” For, “to him that overcometh will I grant to sit 263 with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am. set down with my Father in His throne.” ‘“ No surrender!” then, for the soldier of Christ ; he must overcome !—* Θέλεις, says even a heathen, “θέλεις Ὀλύμπια νικῆσαι; κὠγὼ, νὴ τοὺς θεούς" κομψὸν γάρ ἐστιν. ἄλλα σκόπει καὶ τὰ καθηγούμενα, καὶ τὰ ἀκόλουθα: καὶ οὕτως ἅπτου τῶν ἔργων (Epict. Enchir. c. xxxv.) Then, “οὕτω τρέχετε," says St. Paul, “ἵνα κατα- λάβητε." . (ΝΟ peace with Pope or Pagan!’”—Yea, rather, peace with both! If the reverend writer has had experience, either of Popery garbled by designing men, as in this country, or of Popery as i is throughout the Continent of Europe, and especially in that least Popish of all Romish cities, Rome itself, he can have, assuredly, no leaning towards it. At the same time, he must have found God-loving souls in that communion—souls who will be saved, not through, but, as it were, in spite of their polluted Church ;—not by their religion, but apart from its practical workings of priestcraft on ignorance; of barefaced imposture upon its harmless and willing dupes. It is not clear, on the other hand, whether or not that writer feels any sympathy with that “ free and easy” worship, in which “ familiarity” with Gop —hbefore whom Angels veil their faces—is taken for “the spirit of adoption” in sons; forgetting that the most ‘ dutiful” children, are also the most “ respect- ful.” But if he be of “that pure and Apostolical branch of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church,” which 264 inclines to neither extreme, we almost wonder he can express himself as he does. For he must have learnt from her, as she teaches her sons to be (St. Poly- carp, Ep. Philip. vi.): “ Of πρεσβύτεροι δὲ εὔσπλαγχ- νοι, εἰς πάντας ἐλεήμονες, ἐπιστρέφοντες TA ἀποπεπλανημένα, προνοοῦντες αἐὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἀπεχόμενοι πάσης ὀργῆς, προσωποληψίας, κρίσεως ἀδίκου---- μὴ ἀπότομοι ἐν κρίσει, εἰδότες ὅτε πάντες ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν ἁμαρτίας. Ei οὖν δεόμεθα τοῦ κυρίου, ἵνα ἡμῖν ἀφῇ, ὀφείλομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεναι. ἀπέναντι γὰρ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ ἐσμὲν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ πάντας δεῖ παραστῆναι τῷ nm fa! e an 4 rn 3 βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἕκαστον ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον Sodvat.” And as to Pagans, who are “alienated from the life of Gop” only “through the ignorance that is in them,” what have they done to forfeit all hope of “ peace” from one of the “same body,” “ partaker,” with them, of ““Gop’s promises in Christ,”—and to deserve no pity? Ifa man’s duty be, as Lactantius says (Epi- tome, ὁ. xxxiv. p. 634, ed. Routh), that “unum Deo debet ut patri, alterum homini velut fratri. Ab eodem enim Deo geniti sumus.—Oportet enim scire nos quid Deo quid homini debeamus; Deo scilicet religionem, homini charitatem,” what is that same man’s duty when he goes forth as “messenger of peace” to those same brethren, sent from Him who ‘is our peace,” and who set His servant an example, when He came down from Heaven “to preach peace” to him, who, like his Pagan brethren, was himself “afar off”? Could he, could any servant of Christ who feels his own utter unworthiness and his Lord’s 0 gS ot re SNe ie ag ET Sah SLES = a ee en te ΟῚ. unbounded love, see, for instance, a Brahman raise his eyes towards Heaven, in anxious hope of his final emancipation in Brahm, and asad him, i in fervent devotion, say :— ADITI-r-nu patu no, dushtaram tramanam vacha:! “ May that Erernat ONE (invincible, saving word 1) protect us evermore!” (Sama-V. i. 4; i. 1, 7.) mad’hu DIAUR astu na: PITA! ‘“‘May our Father, Heaven, be favourable to us,” shradd’ha hi te, Mag’havan, parye DIVI. ‘for faith in Thee, O Thou rich in blessings! exalts us to Heaven” (Rig.-V. 1. 6, xvi. 7; Sama-V. i. 2, 3, 4, 8), without holding out to him the right hand, with,—“ My brother! let me bring thee to know Him aright who is thy Father as well as mine, through His Son Jesus Curist, the Saviour of thee and of me, poor sinners”? Or could he hear a Chinese, while kneeling before his idol-god, mutter these words of “the Master,”— * Tse joo tsae, tse SHIN joo SHIN tsae,” “Worship as a reality; worship ‘ the Spirits’ as if -the Spirits were present” (Shang-L. ii. 1), without yearning to teach him to worship his “ unknown God” “in spirit and in truth”? Let that servant bear in mind his own debt of talents freely forgiven ;—the account to be given by the servant “to whom much has been given” ;—the fate that awaits him “who knew his Master’s will 266 and did not do it” ;—he will then forgive his brother's debt of a few pence, and love and pity him “ who knows not his Master’s will.” He will then feel the beam in his own eye, and think less of the mote in his brother’s eye; and he will not turn from him, saying,—We may be brethren, but I see and thou art blind—‘“ no peace with thee” !—But, thanks be to God, “the Father of all mercies,” His Church, in unprejudiced love for every man, whether Jew or Gentile, whether Puritan, Pope, or Pagan,—though not for the errors of his creed,—says to him: Prac! Free pardon and peace with God to us all, who are all equally under sin, through the atoning blood of Jesus Curist our Lord. We would, therefore, gladly ascribe such an ex- pression as the above, to the trying effects of climate on the nerves, the temper, the whole being of man. We fear, however, lest such a sentiment be common to many who go forth as preachers of the “ Gospel of Peace” to the Heathen. And although it is not our place, while working under shelter in the humble sphere of a country parish, to read a homily on the duty of being cool and calm, to men toiling in the heat and bearing the burden of the day, at the post of honour—the missionary station, yet the question forces itself upon us,—What becomes of the Apostolic office of “Ambassador for Christ to the Gentiles” when undertaken in such a spirit? It proves a failure, of course. For the fruit of it is blighted in the seed thereof. Hine “ sunt lacrime ee eT O's NT ee ΤΡ Meck ς ares STE Pos) a Pee ee eel 267 rerum.” And why? The fault lies not in the work, which is “unto life eternal”; neither is it in the reward, which is “ to shine like a star” in the firma- ment of Heaven, for ever and ever. The fault is in the workmen themselves. Many of them well- meaning and zealous, but misguided, independent, and as good as irresponsible men, often come too much in their own name, and often speak too much their own words. With the best intentions, and wishing to do Gop service, such men turn their pruning-hooks into weapons, in order to fight their own battles; and they make the standard of the Cross the badge of a crusade, carried by them even unto the ends of the Earth. For there too, as well as here, the Church of Christ is rent in pieces by feuds, in which even the new commandment, “THAT YE LOVE ONE ANOTHER, AS I HAVE LOVED you,” becomes a dead letter, and out»of date. There too “man” eclipses “Gop,” and brings on darkness at noon- day. And then converts emerging from the gloom of heathenism, open their eyes to the flickering lights of human opinions, instead of at once drawing breath and life in the sunbeams of “One Lorp, one Faith, one Baptism, one Gop and Fatuer of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” So that, when they cry for a draught of living water, the cup is held to their parched lips in the name “of Paul,” “ of Apollos,’ and “ of Cephas,” and but seldom in the one blessed name of “ CHRIST wuo IS OUR LIFE.” 268 Then the labourers sow, but, of course, in tears. They pray, as the Athenians did of old:—“ ὗσον, ὗσον, ὦ φίλε Zed, κατὰ τὰς ἀρούρας τὰς ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ τῶν πεδίων "ἢ but they receive in answer a few partial showers only, over patches of the Lord’s inheritance. Then they look for the fruit of their labours ; and the Lord of the harvest, in pity, bids them go and glean over hill and dale a few handfuls of corn, instead of their reaping his gracious promise of an abundant harvest, when they bind their sheaves on high with joyful songs of thanksgiving. And why is it so? Because, instead of “εἷς ὁ καθηγητὴς ὁ Χριστός," there are ““ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι" and ““καθηγηταί," who, nevertheless, call themselves “ δοῦλοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ," and who, when their Lord bids them go forth and pro- claim aloud,—‘‘ Peace! Peace! to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord, and I will heal him,” say,—‘‘ We give you no peace!” No! ‘‘ Peace on Earth and good-will towards men,”—but only to those who think as we do! ; Not so St. Paul. At Athens and at Lystra he spoke more kindly; he showed more feeling, more pity. He went through the city as “one bringing glad tidings of good things”; and his preaching on the Areopagus was the voice of him ‘who preacheth Pracre”—even from the citadel of the god of war. He did not battle with his hearers. But, in order to preach to them “Jxsus and the resurrection,” he, first of all, told them he and they were “ brethren,’— children of the same Father, their “ unknown God”; eee ee ae stale Y bt: whom he, however, knew, and whom he came to teach them to worship aright. In so doing, he won their hearts to himself and their souls for Heaven. He brought them in among “the first-fruits of his Apostleship”; and they will be gems in his “ crown of rejoicing” in the presence of our Lord Jzsus Curist at His coming. That holy Apostle has left us an example. Let us at least endeavour to be followers of him, as he also was of Christ. Our own estimate of antiquity differs also greatly from that of the reverend writer quoted above. For his tastes are decidedly modern. He seems to dote on “Sain,” which is recent as a substitute for ‘ Gop,” although he is bent on treading in the footsteps of his predecessors, in paths which he considers “ old and safe.” But he is, perhaps, not aware that those “‘old paths” were not made at first by Dr. Morrison, but. by Jesuit Missionaries! “Idem occurrit,” says Mr. Callery (Syst. Phon. p. 80), ‘‘ pro Sinica Scrip- turee Sacre versione que ejusdem auctoris (Dr. Morrison) calamo tribuitur; etsi de facto sit mera publicatio versionis a Jesuitis relictee, cujus manu- scriptum Anglis officiose traditum fuit ab incauto de Propaganda fide Procuratore, J. Marchini.” (See also that popular and valuable work, “ The Bible of Every Land,” p. 4.) i Such is that ‘old ground,” such are those “ old paths,” which only lead to another “Shibboleth” at the fords of the Yang-tsze-keang, where, it appears, many a good heart is slain in cool blood by the ruth- 270 less “men of Surv.” And yet, it is they, and not the “Bishop of Victoria,” who force upon others “the simple and chaste style of the Jesuits” (see Shin v. Shang-Te, pp. 10, 19), by defending as “a matter of conscience,” from which there is no appeal, a version of the Bible, originally made by the Jesuits them- selves, and apparently not much improved by those who revised it. They fold to their bosom the very style they denounce in others ; and blame the Bishop of Victoria for what they do themselves. So much for zeal without knowledge, which is but another name for “ party-spirit,”—and that, too, “in the name of Gop,” and for the sake of the “ Priyce oF Prace”! “ Brethren,” says St. Ignatius (ad Philad. Vill.), ““ παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, μηδέν nat ἐριθείαν πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Χριστομαθίαν And again (ad Smyrn. viii.), “Tods δὲ μερισμοὺς φεύγετε, ὡς ἀρχὴν κακῶν. Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις" τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἐντολήν. For, says another venerable follower of the Holy Apostles (St. Clement, ad Cor. xlvi.), “Τὸ σχίσμα ὑμῶν πολλοὺς διέστρεψεν, πολλοὺς εἰς ἀθυμίαν ἔβαλεν, πολλοὺς εἰς δισταγμὸν, τοὺς πάντας ἡμᾶς εἰς λύπην'᾽---καὶ ἐπίμονος ὑμῶν ἐστιν ἡ στάσεις 1" We are, however glad to find, that so self-denying, and so deserving a man as Dr. Morrison, is in part, at least, innocent of what, even to our limited know- ledge of Chinese, appears an inferior style and in- correct readings,—and that, too, quite apart from : 4 | 271 “Sain” or “SHanc-Te.” With all due deference to our betters, we cannot but regret, to think that Christianity among the Chinese should, in a measure, rest upon such a substitute for “the pure milk of the Word” which alone “is able to save their souls.” At the same time, we confess ourselves unable to believe that this version can be understood and liked by the Chinese, who only know their language in its own unadulterated style. And we fear the “old ground” must sometimes prove rather swampy; and the “ old paths” little else than the recent tracks of wandering men. It would seem, assuredly, both better and safer to follow the beaten road of Yaou and Shun, of Woo- wang and of Confucius, in the field of their own literature, than pretend to know better than they, what they meant. One of us might as well presume to have taught Isaiah an improved meaning of his own sublime style, or to have given Plato a lesson in Greek, as to lay down, on our own authority, what the sense of this or that word is in Chinese, and thus sit as “Judge and jury” over “Suin” and SHane-Tr.” And, however anxious some missi- onaries may be to “ go a-head,” they must “ ’bide their time.” They cannot give a new meaning to words by an “‘ipse dixit;” for they are amenable “to the law and to the testimony” of the Chinese in matters of this kind. These know best, assuredly, the value of their own words. For our own part, therefore, we should be well satisfied to adopt as a 272 substitute for by, Et, ory, ELonimM, Θεός and ὁ Θεός, the “one personal Gop,” endued with power and majesty; and worshipped, first, alone, and apart from all other deities, by Yaou and Shun, upwards of four thousand years ago, and ever since that time by Kaou-yaou, Yih, Tseih, E-yun, Confucius himself, and their posterity; while we would adopt other terms, as occasion may require, for θεοί, or for any one of them that is “not Gop.” We leave alone “innovations,” as alike foreign to the Chinese, and opposed to their highest authorities. And, how those people cling to their authorities! We were, one day, reading a portion of the ““ Vishnu- Purana” with a learned Brahman, and the subject matter brought us to discuss the shape of the Earth. He talked gravely of the flat surface of the seas and continents, and of the brilliant and lofty summit of Mount Meru. On the other hand, we made plain to his senses that the Earth is not such as he thought. He then paused for some time, and at last he said: Satyam etad, Mahashaya! Satyam asti, bate! tat’hapi matpushtake na kirtitam! ‘It is true, Sir! very true! still, it is not so stated in my book!”—A lesson, is it not, to many a Christian teacher! We should, indeed, be sorry to find that, while we endeavour to make peace, “ others make ready to battle.” For we have, in this respect, only one wish, and that is, to contribute our mite in helping others to teach the people of China to serve “GOD” in spirit and in truth. Not to worship a certain Spirit, ἡ οἱ ὦ, Hea ae Ce Nea as Mex 4 ἀν τα, Se Ae τ weer fea, ee etm ἐν τῶν 273 or Spirits, an inferior, ill-defined Deity—“ Sumy,” in- herent in every created object, but to learn the purified, soul-enslaving service of the “ one personal and supreme Gop,” who is above Sur, and whom they “ignorantly worship” from the highest anti- quity. St. Paul, at Athens, brought his hearers, through “”Ayvworov Θεόν," τὸν 4ia—by whom Critias even swore,—‘ Νὴ τὸν "ἄγνωστον ἐν ᾿Αθήναις" (Luc. ‘Philop. )—to believe in “the living God.” Why not bring the people of China by gentle means also, to look up to “Swane-Tx,” ὑψιμέδων, since he dwells in the Highest Heaven, as to SX, “ The Mighty,” Dn>y, “the Awful,” and Θεός, “the Supreme” Gop, “who sits on the circle of the Heavens, and makes the Earth his footstool”; and yet hath humbled himself to come “ and dwell among men”? instead of forcing a new system of expressions, adopted, perhaps, by ignorant and submissive congregations, —‘ addicti jurare in verba magistri,’—but alike un- welcome and unintelligible to the educated among the people. Then will “Surin” continue as of old, to be, as it were, an emanation from “ Hwang-T’heen SHanG-TE,”—rd πνεῦμα Διὸς βασιλεῶς, Of Plato; no longer, however, as “ power of the air,” with the “SHIN-KIUN” for ‘“ Prince”; but now, only as “The Spirit,” “’Ayadorov θεοῦ τοῦ ἐφευρημένου, τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἕξῶντος""--ῶἃϑ the Comforter, as the breath of the Almighty that gives His people life. But, we must feel, that in order to impress the Chinese with correct and lasting notions of “ Gop,” 19 274 our teaching must bear the indelible stamp of Untrormity. It must come home to each indi- vidual with the convincing proof to him, of Unrry among the teachers. For it is better to say nothing of Gop, than to misrepresent Him to those who know Him not. And if, in this respect, every man has a right to claim the exercise of “ private judgment,” it can only be to a certain point, not affecting either “Truth” or “ principle.” Now, ‘ various creeds” form no part of Gopv’s Truth; they are only the “filthy rags” of human ignorance, hung about TruTa by men who “as yet only see in part”; and “ self- conceit”—-which is wide apart from “ sincerity”— forms no integral portion of the principle of “doing Gop service.” For in such matters, “private opinion” is but the result of “our seeing only as in a glass, darkly,”—a sad and searching proof of our earthly and still imperfect state. And when we know Gop as we are known of Him, all “ private views” will cease. We shall then see how gross were our “ pri- vate opinions” of Him, when we hear them told one by one in the dazzling light of His glorious presence. That ought to make us more forgetful of “self.” “Tis οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν γενναῖος ;” says again St. Clement (ad Cor. liv.), “ τίς εὔσπλαγχνος; τίς πεπληροφορη- μένος ἀγάπης; εἰπάτω, Εἰ δὶ ἐμὲ στάσις, καὶ ἔρις, καὶ σχίσματα, ἐκχωρῶ, ἄπειμι οὗ ἐὰν βούλησθε--- μόνον τὸ ποίμνιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ eipnvevéro.” It ought to lead us to strive more earnestly, and more unitedly toge- ther, in our service of God in His Church. We all ΜΝ at ee ee 275 of us know, what amount of chaff, of stubble, and of other rubbish, “private judgment” heaps upon the “ foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,” by way of “rearing a holy Temple unto the Lord.” But if these defects be deplorable at home, where there always is an opportunity of appealing from error to a better teaching somewhere, what effect ὦ must they produce in India and China, where no such opportunity exists? There, the “ TrurH as it is in JESUS,” is now proclaimed in greater variety of form than already exists among the sects of the Heathen themselves: and the “ Only True Gop,” “whom to know is Eternal Life,” is there preached under more different names than the principal idols, which the knowledge of Him alone is to abolish. “Tf the Lorp be Gop, follow Him: but if Baal, follow Him.” If “ Saanc-Tr” be your God, worship him. If “Sui” be your choice, serve Him, but serve Him alone. Halt no longer between “ two” opinions or more, but choose one and keep to it. But look well to your decision. And if you come in the “name of God,” “seek not your own.” “ Ἤτω τὶς πιστὸς- --δυνατὸς---σοφὸς.---ὡγνὸς ἐν ἔργοις"---τοσόυτῳ μᾶλλον ταπεινοφρονεῖν ὀφείλει, ὅσῳ δοκεῖ μᾶλλον μείζων εἶναι, καὶ ζητεῖν τὸ κοινωφελὲς πᾶσιν, καὶ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ" (St. Clem. ad Cor. xlviii.). Do not lay bare your own. frailness in the sight of the Heathen. But ‘in the name of Gop,” and ‘ for the sake of Curist,” let the Heathen at least see that ‘His Srirrr” is ONE, however manifold be His gifts. 276 Well might that shrewd Hindoo reply to the Missionary who introduced himself as a teacher of the “ Truth,”—“ ‘ Truth,’ indeed! first agree among yourselves as to what is ‘Truth,’ and then come and teach us!” XIX. It was, therefore, with real satisfaction, that having stumbled many a time in the “old paths,” we found ourselves, at last, on more even ground. It may, perhaps, be want of taste on our part; but still we © like it better. And we believe that those of our readers who will follow us, will find their feet move along more easily on Lao-tsze’s causeway, than on the rugged “old paths” of modern make. Let us compare only one verse as a sample of the latter, with the same passage, in the Shanghaé version of 1851, already quoted. St. John, i. 1, 2. ‘ “ Old Paths” :— TANG CHI I YEW YEN EUL πρὸς τὴν ἀρχν ἤδη ἣν τὸ λαλεῖν, καὶ KE YEN KAE SHIN YEOU KE τοῦτο τὸ λαλεῖν σὺν Δαίμονι καὶ τοῦτο 277 YEN WEI ' SHIN TSZE-CHAY TANG τὸ λαλεῖν ἐστι Δαίμων τὸ τοῦτο πρὸς CHI KAE SHIN YAY. τὴν ἀχν σὺν Δαίμονι Shanghaé version, 1851 :— YUEN CHI YEW TAOU TAOU “YU ἐν τῇ πρώτη ἀρχῇ ἢν ὁ Adyos . ὁ Adyos πρὸς SHANG-TE K’HUNG TSAE ΤΑΟ _ TSEIH τὸν Θεὸν ὁμῶς ἦν, ὁ Δόγος ὄντως SHANG-TE. SHE TAOU YUEN CHI YU ὁ Θεός. οὗτος ὁ Λόγος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἀρχῇ πρὸς SHANG-TE ΚΉΝΟ TSAE YAY. τὸν Θεὸν ὁμῶς ἦν These passages, verbally rendered into English, _ will read thus :— “Old Paths” :-— “ About beginning already there was speech; and that speech with Deity (or Spirit), and that speech was Deity (or Spirit). This same about Sees with Deity (or Spirit).” Shanghaé version :— “ Very-first beginning there was the Word. The Word with Most-High (Gop) indeed existed; the Word indeed Most-High (Gop). ‘That Word very- first beginning with Most-High (Gop) indeed ex- isted.” We do not at present recollect any classical 278 authority that throws light on the above rendering of the “Old Paths.” But there is that very remark- able passage in Lao-tsze (Tao-Te-k. ο. iv.) already alluded to, which bears, in words even, a striking resemblance to the above verse of Scripture in the revised version of Shanghaé :—-TAOU-yay! Iwan hoo! sze wan-wuh-che tsung! Woo puh chi shwuy-che tsze; siang TE-che-sian. “The Taou, (ὁ Aoyos) how pro- found! He appears to be the ancestor of all things! I know not whose Son He is; He seems to have existed even before Suane-Tr”! ‘To which may be added, from c. xxv.:—‘ Yew yih wuh hwen-ching! Sian T’heen-Tih seng! ‘Too li, eul puh ke; ko-i wei T’heen hea Moo!” “(The Taou) is one Being; not perfectly discernible (apratarkyam, avigyeyam, Manu. c. i.); He was born before Heaven and Earth. He alone stands and changes not; He may be consi- dered as the Mother of this world.” And further, in ὃ, xiv., where Lao-Tsze assigns to Taou these three attributes, I-HI-WEI,—“ without colour”— “without sound”—and ‘“ without substance.” Those three characters in Chinese would read I-H-V; and that led A. Rémusat (as we said above, p. 219) to see in it the name of ΠῚ", “ Jehovah.” The Shanghaé translators, therefore, deserve great credit for having, through good scholarship, rendered one of the most important passages in the New Tes- tament in almost the very words of an author anterior to Confucius; and who is held in China for, as it were, inspired. It would have been well, perhaps, if 1 279 the Mandchou and Japanese translators had done the same, instead of following the “Old Paths” in this place, and rendering ὁ Adyos, by “ Gisoon” and “ Kasi- koi,” both of which mean “word,” ὦ. 6., τὸ ῥῆμα, instead of adopting the Chinese word, TAOU, which is current in the classics of both those languages as “ Doro,” and Tawoo or Mitsi. And we cannot admit for one moment, that the Shanghaé translators (not one of whom is personally known to us) had in view “to establish their repu- tation as scholars” only (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 15). But rather, we feel assured by the proofs before us, that they strove to do their best in rendering literally the idea and intention of the Sacred Text, into good Chinese ;—‘ rexpaipes χρῆμ᾽ ἕκαστον." If they have suc- ceeded equally well in the other parts of Scripture, they need not fear either reproach or obloquy. But, on the contrary, they may wait and see which of the two, under God’s blessing, succeeds best in China; whether the crooked “Old Paths” of an Europeo- Chinese, and, we fear also, Pantheistic version of the “‘Word of Gop,’ or that same Word rendered as well as men of judgment and scholars can do, with the best available means at hand. And if scholarship be not honoured by being devoted to the glory of Gop, for what other purpose can it be used? for even a wise man— 74 μαν- τεύσατο δ᾽ ἐς Θεὸν ἐλθών." This, however, is far too solemn a subject to be 280 treated otherwise than sternly and soberly. We would not, therefore, have alluded to the “ Old Paths” further than to show that they do justice to the time at which they were made. But since they have be- come, with some, a matter of ‘“ conscience,” a test of “ Truth,” and of “honesty of purpose,” we have endeavoured to show on what grounds those high pretensions rest; and how easy it is for “‘ conscience” to continue both “ tender and dark,” and for “ Truth” to be so far obscured, as to lead its advocates to fight honestly for a mere shadow. And we have ventured to suggest also, that since all this difference is about the sacred text, the subject should be made, by every one engaged in the translation of that text, a matter of earnest thought and of deep study. These, however, are not to the taste of every one— “ κουφότερα. yap ἀπειράτων φρένες." To some, it is easier at once to prejudice their mind in favour of a particular view of the case, till that alone appears correct; and then put it as a matter of “conscience” only; as if scholarship had little or nothing to do with it; and as if it followed that because a man has, as he thinks, an honest intention, that alone can supply the place of fit words and of pure idiom. In our humble opinion, however, he is most conscien- tious, who takes most pains to get at the root of the matter, till he has satisfied his conscience that he is neither led by prejudice, nor defending a favourite scheme of his own, but that he rests on the only . foundation beyond which he cannot go, And this, 281 in translating the Word of Gop, is, undoubtedly, —classic language. The purest gold, as well as the purest idiom, are for The service of His sanctuary. But pure diction is to be borrowed from classic authors alone. The opinion of Leang-Afa, therefore, against Dr. Gutzlaff’s translation (‘The Bible of Every Land,” p. 5), that it consists of “ passages from classic authors put together to render the Word of Gop,” is a compliment to that late remarkable man. In China, as well as in Europe, a man may affect to underrate that to which he has not attained; he may hold “ classics” cheap because he knows little or nothing about them; and thus save himself the trouble of studying them, on the specious plea that— Hath not Gop made foolish the wisdom of this world?” Yea, verily, and thanks be to Hm, it is “made foolish” as means of redemption, which is through “ Christ crucified” only. But he who wrote that, was himself a good scholar, who spoke good Greek; or they would not have said to him, at Athens, ““Ακουσόμεθά σου rdduv,’—" We will hear thee again.” Nay, by his own example, he teaches us to search in the writings of classic authors, for that which, without imparting the “ fear of God,” can alone educate the mind and form the judgment, of the “ re- deemed of Christ,” who have learnt the “ fear of God” from His own revealed Word. Some men, therefore, might take, if not a leaf, at least a paragraph, out of the book of the Jesuit missionary, Prémare, one of the most accomplished of Chinese scholars, past or 282 present, who says to young missionaries: “ vellem ut quod nemo me facere monuit, alii facerent, dum viget memoria, et anni adhuc florent: quatuor libros classicos memoriter discerent eo plane modo quo solent pueri Sinz; repuerascendum nobis est, si vo- lumus Christum Jesum his gentibus cum fructu annunciare; quem, amabo, laborem talis spes non leniat?” And Confucius, who is seldom wrong in practical matters, says, much to the point: “ Woo-tang tsun ji puh-she, tsun yay puh sih, isze; wo i! puh joo hio yay!—‘‘I have spent whole days without food, and whole nights without sleep, in order to meditate. But it availed not. There is nothing like the sid of ancient authors” (Hea-Lun, ο. xv.). For, adds Hien-wen-shoo (sent. xlvii. )}—* puh teng Shan, puh chi T’heen-che kaou. Puh lin ky, puh chi Tih-che how. Puh wun sian wang-che y yen, puh chi hio-wun-che ta.”—‘‘ In like manner as without as- cending a mountain, we cannot estimate the height of Heaven; nor the depth of the Earth without descend- ing into a valley: so also we cannot know the great- ness of learning and wisdom without listening to the sayings left on record by kings of old.” was et 283 XX. - It is now high time, our readers will say, that we should conclude. We will, therefore, in a few words, briefly sum up the whole. So far as we can gather from Shin v. Shang-Te, the principal arguments against the use of “ SHane- Tr,” as a substitute for “ God,” are these :— I.—That “ Suanc-Te” is the Chinese “ Jupiter.” What of that?—By “Jupiter” is not meant, we hope, that elderly man sitting upon a throne with a thunder-bolt in one hand, a wand in the other, and an eagle at his feet; not to mention a monstrous tale of the foulest absurdities by way of a biography. For ὅηλνα- ΤῈ has nothing in common with him. But Suane-Tre is identical with “ Jupiter” as “ Ζεὺς πατήρ," Dies-piter, Diu-s or Diaus-piter,—“ Hea- venly-Father” personified. “Te-chay,” says Kang- he (art. Ze), “'T’heen-cho-ming; so-i ming Te, Te-chay, Te-yay,” ‘ Ruling,” or “ Ruler,” is a name of Hea- ven; it is called “ Ruler” because it “ judges and decides,” and is “ Shang” as being “ Supreme” (ibid.) =Zeds "Ovpavos”—“ Πάτερ ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν. Ovpavor,’— 284 for the “‘ Heavens rule” (Dan. iv.), 3. ¢., the ‘* Most- High” (ibid.), and “ Gop is the height of Heaven” (Job xxii. 12), ete. And though ὅ'ηλνα- ΤῈ is not expressly ‘“ progenitor genitrixque,” like ‘“ Jupiter,” yet he sends down the Yin and Yang principles to work out Nature; which is nearly the same. He is in the words of the Holy Apostle,—"Ayworos Θεός" —(DEUS, ZETS), “τοῦ yap καὶ γένος ἐσμέν᾽.-- ὃ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν Koopov”—* διδοὺς πᾶσ᾽ ζωήν" (Ζεύς, “ὅθεν ἔχομεν ἀεὶ τὸ ζῆν") «.7.r. (Acts xvii. 23, 28, etc. ). And we add, from the seventh Iguvinian Table: “TouFe Ilatpe wpe meovpov,”—“ worship him first”: for he alone is “ IovIIarep,” called in Phrygia Βαγαῖος, “‘worshipful,” (from the Vaidic B’haga;) or among the same people, “ Mageds,” (also from the ancient Maha- Diu-s, or, perhaps, Mahi-Diaus, of India, )—their “unknown God,” whom Christians alone know, and call, “ Our Faruer which art 1s Heaven”! IJ.—That “ Θεός," and not “ Zeds,” having been adopted by the Apostles, “Ζεύς, “ SHane-Tx,” should not be used by Christians. Doubtless, if there were in Chinese a term cor- responding exactly to “ Θεός." But we know of none. For “ Suu,” when thus by itself, has a collective sense, and means neither “ Θεός nor “6 Θεός," but Deity,” and, perhaps, “θεοί. Whereas “ SHane- Tre” combines both the “individual” God οἵ the Greeks, “ Ζεύς," and the “ personal” God of the Greek language, “ ὁ Θεός," both always in the singular. For ΨΨΨ ἊΝ ΗΝ γεν Δ eS 1 285 Ζεύς, which may have been the “ πρῶτος δαίμων" of the first tribe that ever spoke Greek,—* Ζεύς Aoli- bus, antiquissimis temporibus, in primis proprium videtur fuisse,’ says V. Lennep (Or. Ling. Gr. p. 917), was thus probably anterior to @eds,—“ Atticis proprium, et communi usu tritum.” Since, however, the Chinese language is limited to the Chinese nation, and is not universal, like the Greek, the “individual” God of China, is also the “ personal” god of the Chinese language—that is practically, both Ζεύς and ὁ Θεός in one. IiI.—That there are “some half-dozen Shang- Te’s” in China. We reply,— 1) Not a vestige of more than One “ Suane-Tr” is to be found in the oldest works in Chinese,—which are the highest authority in China. So far as we know, in the “Shoo-king,” which begins with the deeds of Yaou (B.c. 2356), in the She-king, the Hiao-king, in the works of Confucius, of Mencius, of Lao-tsze, and in the Le-ke throughout, no allusion whatever is made but to One Supreme “ SHane-Tr.” The “five Tx’s,” according to Confucius, were only a name for the five elements (see above, p. 220, note). 2) Consequently, the worship of more than One “ Suane-Tx,” if such a worship really exists in China, must be of a comparatively recent date; and therefore it does not bear, so far as we can find from 286 the few books we have, the stamp of “ antiquity,” i. e., of “authority,” for the Chinese.* IV.—That “the use of Suanc-TEr for God will delude the Chinese with the notion that they are serving the true God while worshipping their idols under that name.” We ask,—would that be less the case, when instead * We find mention made of the five “'Tx’s” of Heaven, and of the three “kiun,” or “ presidents,” in the French translation of a modern commentary on Tai-Shang’s “ Kan-ing-Pien” (pp. 7, 8). But even there, they are spoken of as “TE,” Rulers only, over whom one is alone “SHANG,” Supreme. And in our copy of the ‘“ San-kiao-huen-lew,” a work on the rise and progress of the sects of Tao, Confucius, and Buddha, in China, there are only two mentioned as “ Shang-Te,” viz., “ Yu-hwang Shang-Te” (p. 7), and ‘“ Hiuen-T’heen Shang-Te” (p. 14); with a num- ber of inferior gods and goddesses. The print of this article in our copy of that book is so indistinct as to be illegible. In the absence of other information, we should think “ Hiuen-T’heen Shang- Te,” ze. “Shang-Te of the deep-blue or highest Heaven,” identical with the “ Yu-hwang Shang-Te,” _ thus termed by the Taouists, and no other than SHANnG-Tr, who inhabits Tsin-T’heen, the azure or purest and highest of the “thirty-three Heavens” of Chinese theology. 287 of being deluded by one idol of one Suane-Tr, they would have far more frequent opportunities of being deceived by hundreds of idols of hundreds of different “¢ SHINS ?” V.—Great stress, also, is laid on the fact, that some idolatrous Chinese,—even the Emperor Kang-he,—ignorant of the spiritual worship of the real Suana-Tr, thought, very naturally, that his own mode of worship was the right one. But errors of this kind are inevitable at the be- ginning. For converts from heathenism, like prisoners emerging from a dark and gloomy dungeon, are, as it were, dazzled by the light to which their eyes are not accustomed, and they discern objects imperfectly. But, for this very reason, they require tender ma- nagement; like the poor blind man of Bethsaida, who at first only “saw men as trees, walking”; and - on whose eyes our compassionate Saviour, “ who came to give sight to the blind,” laid his hands a second time, “until he was restored and saw every man clearly.” Men in that state are like children, who must be fed with the “milk of the Word” (so that it be pure!) until they gradually come to use more solid food suited to their growing wants, out of the same inexhaustible store. Meanwhile they should be dealt with according to their amount of know- ledge, after the example of the Holy Apostles, to whom “assembled with one accord,” and ‘to the Holy Ghost,” it seemed good to lay upon the “ bre- 288 thren of the Gentiles,’ ‘no greater burden than necessary things.” And these were not many. “If thou believest with all thine heart,” said Philip to the Ethiopian, “thou mayest be baptized.” He answered and said: 1 BELIEVE THAT JESUS-CHRIST 15 THE SON OF GoD.” Upon this foundation, than which none other can be laid, the “ wise master-builder” rears an edifice unto Gop. But he does it slowly, deliberately; re- membering that a temple which is to last for ever, is not “run up” in one day. He therefore aims at opening the understanding, and at training the heart of his neophyte “in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth”; giving him at the same time a correct idea of a Church,—not of a spectral dream of human conceit; not of a sickly, spare, ungainly, figure of a Church in sectarian trim,—but of the broad outline, and stately form of the Church Catho- lic, left on trust by the Holy Apostles of Christ, and modelled after them by their immediate successors. The task of a Missionary, then, although it may be chiefly to impart the rudiments of doctrine to “ babes in Christ,” is not an easy one. For we all know, that it often requires more knowledge, more patience, and more judgment, to teach well the first principles to children, than to develop those same elements to men of mature mind. And a good beginning is always slow, if not also difficult. Even the kingdom of Gop, as well among the heathen as in our own hearts, progresses, like leaven in the lump, slowly and froma small beginning. Yet, “he that believeth shall not make haste.” But he will “ pray without ceasing,” even while at his work; he will “ hope unto ? a eee eer τ ΤΉΝ > Wake the end,’ and “have long patience,” until he receive genial showers of blessing from Him who alone “ siveth the increase” to the seed springing and growing up, “first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear,” “ he knoweth not how.” But the leaven should be new, and the seed good. And the special errand of Missionaries is to provide for that. Their teaching, then, is, like leaven, to transform the people among whom they live into new creatures. Their “preaching of the Word” is the seed which will either be told ten or a hundred-fold by the Angels of Gop, “in that day” “ when every - man’s work shall be made manifest,” or else be by them cast into the fire. And their example, like rays from the Sun of Righteousness, is intended to shed around them a continual influence of “true light” and “everlasting life,” freely sent from Heaven to men. But, what if the leaven is old and the teaching un- sound? what if the seed sown is mingled with tares? what if the light of the teachers is dim, and their life torpid and cold? How shall “the Gentiles see the righteousness of Gop,” and “their glory be like a flowing stream” ? There is, then, enough in this, assuredly, to make many a man pause ere “he puts his hand to the plough” in the field of Missions. For assurance is not faith; nor is presumption authority. And the 20 290 boast of him who “ girdeth on his harness,” is not the song of the warrior who “ putteth it off” after the victory. ‘”Av@pwze,” says a wise man, “πρῶτον émt- σκεψαι ὁποῖόν ἐστι TO Tpaypa’ εἶτα Kal τὴν σεαυτοῦ φύσιν κατάμαθε, εἰ δύνασαι βαστάσαι. Πένταθλος εἶναι βούλει, ἢ παλαιστής; ἴδε σαυτοῦ τοὺς βραχίονας, τοὺς μηροὺς τὴν ὀσφῦν κατάμαθε: ἄλλο γὰρ πρὸς ἄλλο πέφυκε. 4Δοκεῖς, ὅτι ταῦτα ποιῶν, ὡσαύτως δύνασαι ἐσθίειν, ὡσαύτως πίφειν, ὁμοίως δυσαρεστεῖν ; ἀγρυπνῆσαι δεῖ, πονῆσαι, ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων ἀπελθεῖν, ὑπὸ παιδαρίου καταφρονηθῆναι, ἐν παντὶ ἧττον ἔχειν, ἐν τιμῇ, ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐν δίκῃ, ἐν mpay- ματίῳ παντί." (Epict. Ench. ¢.xxxvi.) If the reward of duty well done is great, great also is the regret of duty left undone from a want of aptitude for it. For “a man feels most acutely,” says Simplicius (comm. in Ench., ad loc.),—“ τὸ aicyos τῶν κατὰ προαίρεσιν οἰκείων dpaprnudtov,’— the disgrace of his own short-comings that result from presumption on his part.” If, therefore, after having examined himself, a man finds his strength unequal to the glorious calling of a Missionary, let him, by all means, desist, and rather labour in the Church at home; or better, perhaps, choose another calling in life. There is yet ample scope, even for the most moderate abilities, in a country parish; where, ignoring and ignored, the ser- vant of Christ may do Gop service in doing good to his neighbour. Yet even there, he will find it easier to preach than to practise,—to give advice, than to act up to it. Even in the retirement of his rural 291 life, he may find it hard “ to walk humbly with his Gop”; and even there he will often start from dreams of self-complacency, at the searching voice, “‘ BEHoLp I COME QUICKLY, AND MY REWARD IS WITH ME,” that warns him to “ watch,” and to “take heed unto himself,” lest after he hath preached to others, he himself “should be a castaway.” XXI. On the other hand, the principal plea in favour of * Sutn,” seems to be that of — I.—A great majority for that term. That argument, we apprehend, comes to this :— The multitude of Israel proclaimed Baal, Gop; one prophet of Gop, only, was left in the land, and they even sought his life. Therefore, Baal is Gop!—Poor Galileo, too, was in the minority, and therefore, it - would appear, in the wrong, when in his prison he comforted himself in saying of the Earth,—“ It turns, however; and in spite of them, too!” Ii.—The opinion of residents in China. PPC των ee ee This, it must be admitted, carries with it some weight. For residents in China have opportunities, without which it is impossible to come at a perfect > ς 5 a 292 knowledge of Chinese. But unless it can be proved that all the residents in China, implied in the as- sertion, have availed themselves to the full extent of those opportunities, and have profited thereby, this plea is of little value. The air of China does not of itself, that we know of, infuse knowledge; nor are men’s minds there, more proof against prejudice than in other countries. IlI.—That “ Shin” is a generic term for “ God gods.” That is the very reason why it should not be used for “Gop”; for we have shown,— : 1) That “Gop” has nothing in common with “ gods,” for — 2) that “ θεοί" are not “Θεός; still less, ‘6 Θεός." 3) That “ Θεός" is not “Sumn”; and that “ Sain” is still further from being ‘6 Θεός." 4) That “Sur,” Derry, is ΖΔαίμων, or “ τὸ Δαιμόνιον" taken collectively—sometimes δαίμονες; and ‘“ Oeds” only when this implies δαίμονα under some visible form—or ‘“ θεόν ξύλινον." Therefore, that since “Surin” is applied to num- berless “idols,” and is itself inferior to the “ Supreme Being”—Suane-TE;—not only it is not an appro- priate substitute for “6 @eds,”—“ Gop,” but the ob- jection of there being “ more than one Tr,” made — against Suanc-Tr, is far more applicable to the case — of Sun. For, as we have said, there must be greater danger of fostering Polytheism in China, with Sum, 293 a “host” in itself, than with two or more SHANG- 4 Tx’s; admitting, for argument sake, that these are ____ all equal in rank and power. IV.—That Sumy being of such comprehensive meaning, it seems to correspond best with the plural DTN, Elohim. al ΟΥ̓ ee ee oe ey, We have seen,— 1) That practically, the plural in Widities Spins respect only. When taken in a plural sense it may apply to the “ Host of Heaven.” Now we do not “worship” that host; nor do we wish to mislead the Chinese into the “ worship of angels.” 2) That the collective noun, “Sury,” does not represent Exonm in the singular sense of “Gop”; but only sometimes “ Elohim,” “gods”; and that it neither has anything in common with the “unity” implied in the term “ @eds”—Deus, in its original sense, nor with “‘God” in its probable meaning; and still less with the Might and Majesty of “Ex” and of “ ELoum.” V.—Snurn is declared to be the true rendering of D'S by “Hebrmists and divines” (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 11)— who, however, candidly confess (ibid. p. 16) that they “know nothing of Chinese”! VI.—With a crowning effort, the author of Shin v. Shang-Te, summons his renitent brethren to his own tribunal. And, then and there, in foro σ- 294 conscientie, he challenges them,—either to adopt his views in the matter of “Surv,” “ now so plain” (p. 20), “plain enough,” he says (p. 9), “for any serious-minded, sensible Christian, who is willing to be guided by the Word and Spirit of God, to form a sound judgment in this im- portant matter ;”—or to continue under the ban of his displeasure, as neither ‘ serious-minded,” “sensible,” ‘ conscientious,” nor “ candid.”—A pleasant alternative, it must be owned! It is owing, probably, to our being dazzled by the excessive clearness of the subject, that anxious as we are to escape the blighting imputation of seeing and speaking double, from “the only person in England” (as we read in his own pamphlet, p. 20), “ capable of giving a determined exhibition of his views regarding Shin”—we try in vain to see as he does—1) that “Gop” is a “ generic” term, and—2) that “ Sam” is an equivalent for that term. We would gladly, for the sake of peace, stretch a point or two;—stroke down difficulties ;—waive al- together the relative difference between the singular —__ by, MN, and Θεός, and the plural Dds ;—draw no . distinction between 28, DOYION, and Θεός, with or without the article;—and render all those terms by the one word “Gop.” And, so far, we should pro- bably join issue with the “‘men of Sumy.” 3 But when they further appeal to ‘ conscience,” 4 in proof that “Gop, gods,” and “Sum,” being both - ἢ Π - 4 ba ° Ξ Ἂς 2 Ole ears Dees a : Ve Or Se LTE WE tee Se a ae ae AIG 995 “eneric” terms, they are either identical or equi- valent, the plea is so solemn, that we feel obliged, even at the risk of being tedious, once more to ask, for the sake of our own conscience and of that of others, If “Gop” is a “ generic” term given to Gop as such, of what sort of “genus” is it ? We shrink from assimilating the unapproachable Majesty of Gov’s holy Name with earthly things. But we are driven to inquire: Is “ Gop,” then, a genus like certain genera in Natural History (Apterix, Didus, etc.), which embrace only one species or indi- vidual? If so, we might possibly be at one with the “men of Surv.” But a “genus” of this kind will not suit them; for they always couple “God, gods” together (Shin v. Shang-Te, Ὁ. 1, etc.); from whence we must infer that they look upon the singular term, “ God,” as the “ genus,” and upon the plural, “ gods,” as the “species” of that genus. The plural, DTN, therefore, cannot be, as they say, a “ generic” term, for a “generic” term is in the singular. Take, for instance, the generic term “man,” with which the term “God” is compared in Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 6. “Ὁ Man,” as a “genus,” does not convey the thought or idea of the individual Apam, from whom all men came; but “man” is the idea left on the mind by the aggregate of “mankind.” So that while talking of “a man,” “men,” “tall or short,” ‘good or bad,” the type, “man,” runs through them all, for they all share itin common. Do the friends of “ Sut,” then, look upon “God” in the same light? Does the term 296 “God” in the Bible, convey to their mind one idea formed by the aggregate of all that is or was wor- shipped, whether the One Eternal Gop, who alone Is, or the foulest images of a corrupt imagination that ARE NoT? And are “a god,” and “gods,” in their estimation, a part of “Gop”? We trust not. Yet Dros Pat from their own showing, imply the “species” of the singular “oenus,” 28 or TON. If so, then, why are those several terms in the singular and plural not rendered accordingly, in the various translations of the Bible? for the “genus” can not stand for the “ species,’ nor vice versd. Especially in this case. For the type of this would-be genus “Gop,” is “Essence,” “self-existing being.” This type, however, is limited to the so-called “ generic” term ‘ Gop,” who alone 1s, and it excludes the ‘‘ species,” “ta god, gods,” which ARE Nor. And why is Ὁ δὲ ever construed with a verb in the singular after it? bees in reality, the Hebrew language has no “ generic” term for “Gop.” If it had, by, ON, and pds, would not imply the same τ νυ κα βον, πρύμο they do. But in Hebrew there is no other Gop than “WX AYIS"— —“ DNA Sa op pe —« ond mint any “4931 min’ for He alone says I AM. All other “ θεοὶ πολλοί᾽ (1 Cor. viii. 5) are only “λεγόμενοι θεοί" “said to be gods”; as the Georgian version renders it, sakhel-debul ghmertni,—‘‘ gods by name- given” only; since in the words of Scripture they are ‘ by NO” and “ pbs ὟΣ ” neither God” — SE NN See Oa On ey TELS PEER get Ome, Ghee ag Reem "eee PE Eee Me eee oh, eed Re eee ee 297 nor “gods.” For that, adds the Ethiopic, -\H54: AANANTU™: NHSZ: AI7EVO:: “their many gods are so many devils.” Their name, therefore, cannot possibly be applied to “Gop,” who is called mms, “Iam,” DSS “Gop,” and Ay, “ Tue Erernat One,” in the same verse (Ex. iii. 15, 16), as if He were of their ‘‘ genus”—for He 1s, and they ARE Not. And to say of Him the “genus,” that He is TRUE, and of them the species, that they are FALSE, is but,— Divino “ capiti —varias inducere plumas Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum Desinat in piscem” and does not, assuredly, go far to make a consistent “venus” of the whole. pry, Gon, then, is in itself, we believe, no “generic” term. It belongs first, to Gop alone.* * The very words, “I am JEnovau, that is my name,” ete. (Shin v. Shang-Te, title-page), show that plainly. For the term IEHOVAH, 77 (Fut. K.), which implies Erernat Essence (GOD), or IAVE Γ (Fut. H.), which expresses the Auruor of that Essence (DIU-S, ΘΕΟΣ), belongs for this very reason, to GOD alone. And although in itself a common term, like bs, pindy, ΘΕΟΣ, etc., it be- comes Gop’s NAME, as belonging to Him alone; and 298 For, except a few instances in which, as 8. Ephrem says (Serm. adv. Scr. xxix. )—]Zaiso\ aciaton;> Jor] . Zaario al 1:0 Ἰδιλ) “Gop, out of loving-kindness to mortal men called them ‘gods,’ as of ‘ grace’”; or other places in which His august Name is degraded when given by misnomer to “thoei vistai ni sind gutha”—“ them which in essence are no gods” says Ulphilas (Gal. iv. 8)—pby in Scripture, belongs to Gop alone. “ Adtapkés οὖν ἡμῖν ἐστιν," Says S. Hip- polytus, ““ μόνον εἰδέναι ὅτι σύγχρονον Θεοῦ οὐδὲν πλὴν αὐτὸς ἦν, αὐτὸς δὲ μόνος dv πολὺς ἦν---πάντα δὲ ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ, αὐτὸς δὲ ἦν τὸ πᾶν" (contra Heres. Noet. 10, ed. Routh). Nay, even the plural or collective sense of DION, as implying the Persons of the Most-Hoty Trinity, is meant for ONE when said of Him, who Seberianus says (Hom. i. p. 6): ms παρ ke wayne δ «Ὁ fig uanupleuy, ἔκ. ἧς "fb βιωηπι fpug ἢ Up big gndutinurfieuge purr gh ἧς bhg sung put ginu.—‘neither consists of several other in- it is also INEFFABLE as implying the Essence of Him whose nature is INCOMPREHENSIBLE. © Now, JEHOVAH and Gop are, as we have seen (above, p. 47, etc.), closely allied in meaning. So that the term Gop (Self-existent) can no more be applied correctly to other beings, than the term Jenovau (Eternal) can become the name of others than of Him who alone Is, without beginning and without end. Pree ene (ere eae es Ae ee ee 299 dividuals combined into One Being, nor of many things included in one thing; since there is nothing anterior to Him.” For (p.12) & wp αὶ imp, ke op ms, hk dp (Puwquenpe ἔκ ns mbupu, be ns msu, ngs Pugucnpu qucuikdp qap gkppapyn(Pfle “there is One Lord, and One God, and One King; we do not acknowledge ‘Lords,’ ‘ Gods,’ or ‘kings,’ in the Holy Trinity.” And (p.14) ful mS wn. as uukey winch ay Es Us mn as, ἔκ. ns iakpy— “ verily, to say ‘Gop with Gop,’ is but to call Gop by © His name. ‘Gop with Gop,’ and not ‘Gops.’” We are, therefore, at a loss to conceive (although it may be ignorance on our part), how any one can feel his * conscience” urged to believe that ““ Gop, gods,” —who have nothing whatever in common but the accident of being “* objects of worship,” one true and the others false,—can ever be a “ genus,” and that the Eternal “ Gop” is a “ generic” term for all the “ vods” of heathendom, taken for His species! The “generic” term for “ object of worship” which such a “conscience” looks for, is not ‘ Gop,” but “Perry.” For the practical acceptation of “ Derry” as ‘object of worship,” forms a “ genus” consistent throughout; since both the Only True Gop, and every one of the “gods” of the heathen, are each “the Derry” of their respective worshippers. To be true to themselves, then, the “men of Sain” ought to adopt ‘“ Derry” instead of “Gop,” in their English version of the Bible. But what cold consolation, to be told that “the Dxrry,” and not the “ SELF-EXISTENT 300 Erernat GOD,” is ‘our refuge, and a very present help in time of trouble”! No! We cannot say: “My soul, wait thou only upon the Derry”; for in “the Derry is my salvation and my glory”: “the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in the Derry.” And yet “Derry, δαίμων,"---ποῦ “ Θεός, GoD,”—is, practically, the equivalent of “Sun” as “ object of worship.” Once more, then, what is “ Suin”’ ? Kang-he (art. Shin) says: SHIN meaou woo fan. “Sun is subtle and spiritual, and it cannot be dis- cerned.” Yin Yang puh ts*hih-che—“it is the un- fathomable part of Yin and of Yang ;”—of the bright and of the obscure, of the male and of the female principles of life and of decay. “ Sury,” then, is “ Sprrir” or “ Sprrits,” tn general. But, in particular, “Suin” is the Ling of Yang, 7. ¢., the best, brightest part of the better principle of the two,—literally, “ Sprit,” κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, and practically, “ Derry”; while the Ling of Yin is called Kwent, soul. The two (“ Kwer-Suin”’) are constantly coupled to- gether in Chinese worship,—‘ Kwet,” as inhabiting the Moon (Tae-Yin), and “Sumy,” as resident in the Sun (Tae-Yang), from whence it is shed abroad on the Earth as “ light and life giving Sprerr.” Sau is worshipped as such only; as the best and brightest element in Nature, to which it gives existence (t*he- wuh eul puh ko ee), and from every object in wale it is inseparable. Some of those objects are worshipped for the sake ro” —-2 : : ᾿ 35 ᾿ ἣ Bs ν Γι » ar a % 301 of the Spirit supposed to inhabit them; and which Spirit those objects, says the Mandchou Dict.— duboroungge-be gemou enduri sembi—* are said to re- present.” This constitutes the Potyrurism, or PE- SHIN of China (7.¢., KWEI-SHIN, She-king, vi. p. 45, and com.), which corresponds to the like worship in Egypt, where “Hermes /igyptius, sensit et scripsit —visibilia et contrectabilia simulacra, velut corpora deorum esse ;—inesse autem his quosdam spiritus in- vitatos— Hos ergo spiritus invisibiles per artem quandam visibilibus rebus corporalis materiz: copu- lare, ut sint quasi animata corpora, illis spiritibus dicata et subdita simulacra, hoc esse dicit deos facere, eamque magnam et mirabilem deos faciendi accepisse homines potestatem,” etc. (St. August. de C. D. lib. viii. ο. 23.) But since “Sur” is inherent ἐγ) all objects in Nature, exactly like δαίμων, ἃ ψυχὰ τῶ κόσμω, οἵ Onatas, which makes the world of Thales “ ἔμψυχος καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρης, the Chinese are evidently liable to Panrurism. And nothing saves them from being mere Polytheists or Pantheists, but their worshipping also One Supreme Being, Suana-Tx, to whom “ Sun” is inferior and subject. Yet although ‘“ Deus unus est, et ubique ipse diffusus est” (St. Cypr. de Idol. V.5), b2lo waonkso -s—*“ He is neither confined in any one place,” like “Sin” in an “idol ; wy aS $o,S0 o1dacni, foriio }1032 oof beh «,αἹ-- ΠΟΥ “does He manifest Himself by issuing forth like wind or light”—as “Sum” does from the Sun (St, 302 Ephrem, Serm. adv. Ser. xxx.). But Gop is One, alone and Supreme; Lord-Governor of Heaven and Earth; like 1’HEEN-CHOO-TSE, SHanc-TE, who is called T’HEEN-SHIN, “the Deity of Heaven,” but only by catachresis, and in like manner as a block of wood or stone is called Spirit (“Sum”), or “ Bright- Heaven” (Θεός). For the “ vivifying energy,” “ Sum,” or “Spirit” of Heaven, dwells in the Sun; from whence it radiates upon the Earth, as both light and life, by the will of SHANG-TE, whose name is one with >¥ and INDRA, the Supreme Rucer of Heaven. As we conscientiously believe that ‘“‘Gop” is not a “generic” term, and that “Sury,” according to Chinese ideas, answers best not to “Gop,” but to “Derry,” which, they say, animates all bodies,—we again repeat, that to urge “Sain” upon the Chinese as the only equivalent and sole representative of “Gop,” is to lead them, unwittingly, to PoLyTHetsm, if not also to Panrueism.* At least, it appears to * We are not singular in thinking that the worship of “Sum” must have even worse results. Mr. Abel Rémusat, the first Chinese scholar of his day, in Europe, says:—“ On pourrait cependant conclure du passage qui nous occupe (Chung-Yung, ὁ. xvi. 3) que le sentiment de Confucius sur ces esprits se rapprochait beaucoup du Spinosisme, et des idées exprimées dans le fameux passage de Sénéque, si souvent cité” (Quest. Nat. ii. c. xlv.). “ Eundem : ' 303 us, that it is doing what even Plato would not do. It is making “ ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου,---Δία," instead of leaving it “vy Διὸς Bacireds.” It is, in short, drawing “Gop” from “Spirit,” instead of drawing * Spirit” from “ Gop.” _ In Chinese, then, the emanation SHIN is practically, DEITY, 4AIMAN ; and SHANG-TE, from whom it emanates, is the nearest equivalent for GOD, ΘΕΟΣ. We, Christians, know and believe that “Gop is a Sprrit,” infinite, invisible, eternal; but we think of Him habitually as of a Person, who is “ tender Father,” “ Almighty Creator,” and “ Just Judge.” Our heart dwells on His attributes as such; and that is the habitual idea we have to impart to the people of China. Now they already worship Suanc-Tr and Suty, “ Gop and Derry,” Θεός and Aaiyov. ‘pypnn> ma pe “py owh—(Pirke Av. v. 18.) “Every controversy which is for the sake of the Name of Heaven, will be finally established, whereas every other ‘sort of discussion will come to nothing,” our own earnest wish to assist our brethren in their decision may not prove altogether fruitless. If, then, we have been allowed to say aught that may, directly or indirectly, “ fall out rather unto the furtherance of 310 the Gospel” in China, and help even one poor man there ‘“ to choose,” as the pious Anthon says (Asc. Is. v. p. 78): A: ATHANHG: NP: Ler: Aa: AGTH : ANH: PHM ::—‘‘the Word of Gop for his provision by the way, rather than much trea- sure” then,— “To GOD onLy WISE, BE GLORY, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, ror Ever. AMEN.” ATINPACE: a From the Catacombs at Rome. a Se ἘΣ a University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. REC'D LD-URL FEB 27 1995 Apr . Un | wl TT 0104312 4 Ven u ay ie i ἢ ἫΝ ἣν ᾿ ΔΝ ΗΝ ἊΣ etek STOR IAS Ey hi ἰδ es ΑΙ τὰ SNe is) ay iy Alt le 4 Pint ai za ii) Ἢ a . ΤῊΝ ioe ἢ: ἐδ ᾿ ΤῊΝ Sia Mae i a ἢ ΤΩΝ ἈΝ oh ety a Lia Ns sab Meee ἡ et ACHR ut oe ἰοῦ att mite Sct Baa Phas, Ht Phe min rake 4 deni sau pat ἐδ, ἣν ἜΝ ᾿ can ay Τὸν ΠΡ 2, Ath yt} i, aie Five ἢ hy δ 8 1! it alt i isle balls pace ate ‘i Has q Mis, ΓΝ : GoM " ieee ae An ὟΝ eats Oh) Ray ‘i i ΠΟ Nips 4 Soy! » digs Π i ᾿ Vs ΤῊΝ ἢ Hat He ᾿ ἘΠῚ ἜΠΗ seat Dee aay bis ΩΝ a wie Bie ὉΠ} 0 is LN i} f sta 49 dia Wit ie nis fi ἡ 1: ΠΝ 34) ae UE Psst Mien a Ἢ hie als = Soe A hoi ay ΐ seh ae ΤῊ ArT At ile fr Pant RAS a a oe ‘ ΠῚ ἬΝ nV si ait) rf f π fae a ἦν i ΠΗ ᾿ ἡ LEA AS) si ΤΠ EY ie ᾿ a edt ἢ #5 $ Ae ἢ i i Ἢ ΠΩΣ BA ¢ Heras, bs} ies τ ... τῇ Ἢ ΠΗ oa Were ei? At sa "Ἢ » ς if ; ως i pe Ane Pani { ἘΡΩ͂ΣΙ ΡΠ ΤΙ ΤΕ eid ee Fee ire Beer: nf ease aie: